Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: In many equestrian activities a specific position of head and/or neck is required that is dissimilar to the natural position. There is controversy about the effects of these positions on locomotion pattern, but few quantitative data are available. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of 5 different head and neck positions on thoracolumbar kinematics of the horse. METHODS: Kinematics of 7 high level dressage horses were measured walking and trotting on an instrumented treadmill with the head and neck in the following positions: HNP2 = neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 = as HNP2 with bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 = head and neck lowered, nose behind the vertical; HNP5 = head and neck in extreme high position; HNP6 = head and neck forward and downward. HNP1 was a speed-matched control (head and neck unrestrained). RESULTS: The head and neck positions affected only the flexion-extension motion. The positions in which the neck was extended (HNP2, 3, 5) increased extension in the anterior thoracic region, but increased flexion in the posterior thoracic and lumbar region. For HNP4 the pattern was the opposite. Positions 2, 3 and 5 reduced the flexion-extension range of motion (ROM) while HNP4 increased it. HNP5 was the only position that negatively affected intravertebral pattern symmetry and reduced hindlimb protraction. The stride length was significantly reduced at walk in positions 2, 3, 4 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant influence of head/neck position on back kinematics. Elevated head and neck induce extension in the thoracic region and flexion in the lumbar region; besides reducing the sagittal range of motion. Lowered head and neck produces the opposite. A very high position of the head and neck seems to disturb normal kinematics. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: This study provides quantitative data on the effect of head/neck positions on thoracolumbar motion and may help in discussions on the ethical acceptability of some training methods.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Little is known in quantitative terms about the influence of different head-neck positions (HNPs) on the loading pattern of the locomotor apparatus. Therefore it is difficult to predict whether a specific riding technique is beneficial for the horse or if it may increase the risk for injury. OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of forelimb-hindlimb balance and its underlying temporal changes in relation to different head and neck positions. METHODS: Vertical ground reaction force and time parameters of each limb were measured in 7 high level dressage horses while being ridden at walk and trot on an instrumented treadmill in 6 predetermined HNPs: HNP1 – free, unrestrained with loose reins; HNP2 – neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 – neck raised, bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 – neck lowered and flexed, bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical; HNP5 – neck extremely elevated and bridge of the nose considerably in front of the vertical; HNP6 – neck and head extended forward and downward. Positions were judged by a qualified dressage judge. HNPs were assessed by comparing the data to a velocity-matched reference HNP (HNP2). Differences were tested using paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test (P<0.05). RESULTS: At the walk, stride duration and overreach distance increased in HNP1, but decreased in HNP3 and HNP5. Stride impulse was shifted to the forehand in HNP1 and HNP6, but shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. At the trot, stride duration increased in HNP4 and HNP5. Overreach distance was shorter in HNP4. Stride impulse shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. In HNP1 peak forces decreased in the forelimbs; in HNP5 peak forces increased in fore- and hindlimbs. CONCLUSIONS: HNP5 had the biggest impact on limb timing and load distribution and behaved inversely to HNP1 and HNP6. Shortening of forelimb stance duration in HNP5 increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: An extremely high HNP affects functionality much more than an extremely low neck.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING THE STUDY: As there are no reports on the real workload of horses that jump fences, this study was undertaken in riding-school horses. OBJECTIVE: To compare the workload of horses jumping a course of fences with that of horses cantering over the same course at the same average speed without jumping fences. The workload variables included heart rate (HR), packed cell volume (PCV), acid-base balance (venous pH, pCO2, HCO3-) and blood lactate (LA), glucose, total protein and electrolyte concentrations. METHODS: Eight healthy riding-school horses performed test A (a course of approximately 700 m with 12 jumps from 0.8-1.0 m high at an average speed of approximately 350 m/min) and test B (same course at the same speed, but without the rails) in a crossover study with at least 4 h between the 2 tests. Before each test the horses were fitted with a heart rate meter (Polar Electro). Blood samples were taken from the jugular vein at rest prior to the test, after warm-up before starting the course, immediately after the course and after recovery. All samples were analysed immediately. RESULTS: The mean +/- s.d maximal HR (beats/min) during the course (184 +/- 17 and 156 +/- 21, respectively) and the mean HR after recovery (75 +/- 6 and 63 +/- 7, respectively) were significantly higher in test A compared to test B (P = 0.001 and P = 0.007 respectively). The mean LA concentrations after the course and after recovery (mmol/l) were significantly higher in test A (3.6 +/- 2.7 and 1.0 +/- 0.9, respectively) compared to test B (0.9 +/- 0.5 and 0.3 +/- 0.1, respectively), (P = 0.016 and P = 0.048 respectively). The mean PCV (I/l) after the course and after recovery was also significantly different between tests A (0.48 +/- 0.04 and 0.39 +/- 0.03, respectively) and B (0.42 +/- 0.04 and 0.36 +/- 0.03, respectively) (P<0.01). The mean pH and the mean HCO3- (mmol/l) after the course were significantly lower in test A (7.40 +/- 0.04 and 28.9 +/- 1.4, respectively) compared to test B (7.45 +/- 0.03 and 30.4 +/- 2.3, respectively) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that in riding-school horses jumping fences, even at a low level competition, provokes a significant workload compared to cantering the same distance and speed without fences. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: This study makes it clear that the extra workload of jumping fences should be taken into account in the training programmes of jumping horses. Further research with more experienced horses jumping higher fences will reveal the workload for top-level jumping horses.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: One cause of overstrain injury to the superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT) in horses is the force loaded on the SDFT during repeated running. Therefore, decreasing this force may reduce SDFT injury. It has been reported that strain on the SDFT decreases with a toe-wedge shoe. Uphill courses are used for training of racehorses, and the angle of hoof-sole to the horizon during uphill running is similar to that of the toe-wedge shoe. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of uphill exercise on the force on the SDFT during trotting and cantering. METHODS: Arthroscopically implantable force probes (AIFP) were implanted into the SDFT of the left or right forelimb of 7 Thoroughbred horses and AIFP output recorded during trotting and cantering on a treadmill inclined at slopes of 0, 3 or 8%, and then 0% again. Superficial digital flexor tendon force was calculated as a relative value, with the amplitude of AIFP output voltage at initial 0% slope equal to 100. RESULTS: Out of 14 sets of experiments, AIFP data were analysed successfully in 9 at the trot, in 3 at the canter in the trailing forelimb on a slope of 3 and 8%, and in 2 at the canter in the leading forelimb on a slope of 3%. Increasing the incline from 0-8% tended to decrease peak force in the SDFT at the trot, and in the trailing forelimb at the canter. However, force in the SDFT was unchanged in the leading forelimb at the canter on the 3% incline. CONCLUSIONS: The force in the SDFT trotting or cantering uphill is unchanged or lower than that loaded at the same speed on a flat surface. Because at similar speeds the workload for uphill exercise is greater than on the flat, uphill running increases exercise intensity without increasing force in the SDFT. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Uphill exercise may reduce the risk of SDFT injury as both running speed and SDFT force are decreased on an incline as compared to the flat, even when exercise intensity is the same. Further study is needed to confirm these findings at canter in a larger population of horses.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Force transmission under an English saddle (ES) at walk, trot and canter is commonly evaluated, but the influence of a side saddle (SS) on the equine back has not been documented. HYPOTHESIS: Force transmission under a SS, with its asymmetric construction, is different from an ES in walk, trot and canter, expressed in maximum overall force (MOF), force in the quarters of the saddle mat, and centre of pressure (COP). The biomechanics of the equine back are different under a SS compared to ES. METHODS: Thirteen horses without clinical signs of back pain ridden in an indoor riding school with both saddles were measured using an electronic saddle sensor pad. Synchronous kinematic measurements were carried out with tracing markers placed along the back in front of (withers, W) and behind the saddle (4th lumbar vertebra, L4). At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter with both saddles (ES, SS) were measured. Out of the pressure distribution the maximum overall force (MOF) and the location of the centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. RESULTS: Under the SS the centre of pressure was located to the right of the median and slightly caudal compared to the COP under the ES in all gaits. The MOF was significantly different (P<0.01) between saddles. At walk, L4 showed significantly larger (P<0.01) vertical excursions under the ES. Under the SS relative horizontal movement of W was significantly reduced (P<0.01) at trot, and at canter the transversal movement was significantly reduced (P<0.01) . In both trot and canter, no significant differences in the movement of L4 were documented. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The results demonstrate that the load under a SS creates asymmetric force transmission under the saddle, and also influences back movement. To change the load distribution on the back of horses with potential back pain and as a training variation, a combination of both riding styles is suitable.