Winkelmayr, B., Peham, C., Fruhwirth, B., Licka, T., & Scheidl, M. (2006). Evaluation of the force acting on the back of the horse with an English saddle and a side saddle at walk, trot and canter. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 406–410.
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.
|
|
Meershoek, L. S., Roepstorff, L., Schamhardt, H. C., Johnston, C., & Bobbert, M. F. (2001). Joint moments in the distal forelimbs of jumping horses during landing. Equine Vet J, 33(4), 410–415.
Abstract: Tendon injuries are an important problem in athletic horses and are probably caused by excessive loading of the tendons during demanding activities. As a first step towards understanding these injuries, the tendon loading was quantified during jump landings. Kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected from the leading and trailing forelimbs of 6 experienced jumping horses. Joint moments were calculated using inverse dynamic analysis. It was found that the variation of movement and loading patterns was small, both within and between horses. The peak flexor joint moments in the coffin and fetlock joints were larger in the trailing limb (-0.62 and -2.44 Nm/kg bwt, respectively) than in the leading limb (-0.44 and -1.93 Nm/kg bwt, respectively) and exceeded literature values for trot by 82 and 45%. Additionally, there was an extensor coffin joint moment in the first half of the stance phase of the leading limb (peak value 0.26+/-0.18 Nm/kg bwt). From these results, it was concluded that the loading of the flexor tendons during landing was higher in the trailing than in the leading limb and that there was an unexpected loading of the extensor tendon in the leading limb.
|
|
Meershoek, L. S., Schamhardt, H. C., Roepstorff, L., & Johnston, C. (2001). Forelimb tendon loading during jump landings and the influence of fence height. Equine Vet J Suppl, (33), 6–10.
Abstract: Lameness in athletic horses is often caused by forelimb tendon injuries, especially in the interosseus tendon (TI) and superficial digital flexor tendon (SDF), but also in the accessory ligament (AL) of the deep digital flexor tendon (DDF). In an attempt to explain the aetiology of these injuries, the present study investigated the loading of the tendons during landing after a jump. In jumping horses, the highest forces can be expected in the trailing limb during landing. Therefore, landing kinematics and ground reaction forces of the trailing forelimb were measured from 6 horses jumping single fences with low to medium heights of 0.80, 1.00 and 1.20 m. The tendon forces were calculated using inverse dynamics and an in vitro model of the lower forelimb. Calculated peak forces in the TI, SDF and DDF + AL during landing were 15.8, 13.9 and 11.7 kN respectively. The relative loading of the tendons (landing forces compared with failure forces determined in a separate study) increased from DDF to TI to SDF and was very high in SDF. This explains the low injury incidence of the DDF and the high injury incidence of the SDF. Fence height substantially influenced SDF forces, whereas it hardly influenced TI forces and did not influence AL strain. Reduction of fence height might therefore limit the risks for SDF injuries, but not for TI and AL injuries.
|
|
Gomez Alvarez, C. B., Rhodin, M., Bobber, M. F., Meyer, H., Weishaupt, M. A., Johnston, C., et al. (2006). The effect of head and neck position on the thoracolumbar kinematics in the unridden horse. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 445–451.
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.
|
|
Clayton, H. M., Lanovaz, J. L., Schamhardt, H. C., & van Wessum, R. (1999). The effects of a rider's mass on ground reaction forces and fetlock kinematics at the trot. Equine Vet J Suppl, 30, 218–221.
Abstract: Ground reaction force (GRF) measurements are often normalised to body mass to facilitate inter-individual comparisons. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of a rider on the GRFs and fetlock joint kinematics of trotting horses. The subjects were 5 dressage-trained horses and 3 experienced dressage riders. Ground reaction force measurements and sagittal view videotapes were recorded as the horses trotted at the same velocity in hand (3.49 +/- 0.52 m/s) and with a rider (3.49 +/- 0.46 m/s). Data were time-normalised to stance duration. Ground reaction force measurements were expressed in absolute terms and normalised to the system mass (horse or horse plus rider). All the horses showed changes in the same direction when comparing the ridden condition with the in-hand condition. There was an increase in the absolute peak vertical GRFs of the fore- and hindlimbs with a rider. However, the mass-normalised peak vertical GRFs were lower for the ridden condition, with the peak occurring later in the forelimbs and earlier in the hindlimbs compared with the inhand condition. Maximal fetlock angle and its time of occurrence were similar for the 2 conditions, but the fore fetlock joint was more extended during the later part of the stance phase in ridden horses. The presence of a rider appeared to affect the GRFs and fetlock joint kinematics differently in the fore- and hindlimbs, and the ridden horse did not seem to be equivalent to a proportionately larger horse. This should be considered when normalising for body mass in studies comparing horses in hand and ridden horses.
|
|