Does 'hacking' surface type affect equine forelimb foot placement, movement symmetry or hoof impact deceleration during ridden walk and trot exercise?

BACKGROUND

Both pleasure and competition horses regularly exercise on surfaces such as tarmac, gravel and turf during 'hacking'. Despite this, there is limited evidence relating to the effect of these surfaces upon foot-surface interaction.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate forelimb foot placement, hoof vibration and movement symmetry in pleasure horses on three commonly encountered hacking surfaces.

STUDY DESIGN

Quantitative gait study in a convenience sample.

METHODS

Six horses regularly partaking in hacking exercise were ridden in walk and trot on all surfaces. Horses were equipped with one hoof-mounted, accelerometer and four body-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs) to measure foot impact and movement symmetry. High-speed (400 FPS) video footage of foot-placement was acquired (dorsal, palmar, lateral views). Foot-impact and movement symmetry were analysed with a mixed effects model and Bowker symmetry tests for foot-placement analysis.

RESULTS

Vibration power and frequency parameters increase as perceived surface firmness increases from grass, to gravel, to tarmac (P≤0.001). Vibration power parameters were consistently greater at trot compared with walk (P≤0.001), but the same was not true for vibration frequency (P≥0.2). Greatest movement asymmetry was recorded during grass surface trotting. No significant difference in foot-placement was detected between the three surfaces.

MAIN LIMITATIONS

This was a field study using three commonly encountered hacking surfaces. Surface properties change easily with water content and temperature fluctuations so care must be taken when considering other similar surfaces, especially at different times of the year. Six leisure horses were used so the results may not be representative of horses of all types.

CONCLUSIONS

Vibration parameters generally increase as perceived surface firmness increases. Increasing speed alters vibration power but not frequency. Further investigations are required to determine the role that this may play in the development of musculoskeletal disease in horses.

Head, withers and pelvic movement asymmetry and their relative timing in trot in racing Thoroughbreds in training

BACKGROUND

Horses show compensatory head movement in hindlimb lameness and compensatory pelvis movement in forelimb lameness but little is known about the relationship of withers movement symmetry with head and pelvic asymmetry in horses with naturally occurring gait asymmetries.

OBJECTIVES

To document head, withers and pelvic movement asymmetry and timing differences in horses with naturally occurring gait asymmetries.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of gait data.

METHODS

Head, withers and pelvic movement asymmetry and timing of displacement minima and maxima were quantified from inertial sensors in 163 Thoroughbreds during trot-ups on hard ground. Horses were divided into 4 subgroups using the direction of head and withers movement asymmetry. Scatter plots of head vs. pelvic movement asymmetry illustrated how the head-withers relationship distinguishes between contralateral and ipsilateral head-pelvic movement asymmetry. Independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test (P<0.05) compared pelvic movement asymmetry and timing differences between groups.

RESULTS

The relationship between head and withers asymmetry (i.e. same sided or opposite sided asymmetry) predicts the relationship between head and pelvic asymmetry in 69-77% of horses. Pelvic movement symmetry was significantly different between horses with same sign vs. opposite sign of head-withers asymmetry (P<0.0001). Timing of the maximum head height reached after contralateral ('sound') stance was delayed compared to withers (P = 0.02) and pelvis (P = 0.04) in horses with contralateral head-withers asymmetry.

MAIN LIMITATIONS

The clinical lameness status of the horses was not investigated.

CONCLUSION

In the Thoroughbreds with natural gait asymmetries investigated here, the direction of head vs. withers movement asymmetry identifies the majority of horses with ipsilateral and contralateral head and pelvic movement asymmetries. Withers movement should be further investigated for differentiating between forelimb and hindlimb lame horses. Horses with opposite sided head and withers asymmetry significantly delay the upward movement of the head after 'sound' forelimb stance.