|
|
Faber, M. J., van Weeren, P. R., Schepers, M., & Barneveld, A. (2003). Long-term follow-up of manipulative treatment in a horse with back problems. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med, 50(5), 241–245.
Abstract: In order to objectively quantify the effect of manipulation on back-related locomotion anomalies in the horse, a recently developed kinematic measuring technique for the objective quantification of thoracolumbar motion in the horse was applied in a dressage horse that was suffering from a back problem. In this horse, clinically, a right-convex bending (scoliosis) from the 10th thoracic vertebra to the second lumbar vertebra was diagnosed. As a result, there was a marked asymmetric movement of the thoracolumbar spine. Functionally, there was severe loss of performance. Thoracolumbar motion was measured in terms of ventrodorsal flexion, lateral flexion, and axial rotation using an automated gait analysis system. Measurements were repeated before and 2 days after treatment, before the second treatment 3 weeks later, and at 4 weeks and 8 months after the second treatment to assess long-term effect. At the same time, performance of the horse was assessed subjectively by the trainer as well. Symmetry of movement improved dramatically after the first treatment. After this, there was a slight decrease in symmetry, but 8 months after the last treatment the symmetry indexes for the various joints were still considerably better than during the first (pre-treatment) measuring session. Subjectively, the trainer did not notice improvement until after measurement session 4. Between sessions 4 and 5 (at 4 weeks and 8 months after the second treatment) there was a change of trainer. The new trainer did not report any back problem, and succeeded in bringing the horse back to its former level in competition. It is concluded that manipulation had a measurable influence on the kinematics of the thoracolumbar spine. However, it is recognized that an improvement in symmetry of motion is not equivalent to clinical improvement and that other measures, such as changes in management, may be more decisive.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Petter-Puchner, A. H., Froetscher, W., Krametter-Froetscher, R., Lorinson, D., Redl, H., & van Griensven, M. (2007). The long-term neurocompatibility of human fibrin sealant and equine collagen as biomatrices in experimental spinal cord injury. Exp Toxicol Pathol, 58(4), 237–245.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: While fibrin sealant (FS) and equine collagen (EC) have been used as scaffold materials in experimental spinal cord injury (SCI), questions concerning neurocompatibility still remain. In this study, we assessed potential adverse effects, as well as functional and histological impact of FS and EC in subtotal hemisection of the thoracic spinal cord (SC) in rats. METHODS: 124 male rats were randomly assigned to four main groups (n=31): Sham (SH), Lesion only (L), fibrin sealant (GFS) and equine collagen group (GEC). SH animals received laminectomy only; all other animals underwent subtotal lateral hemisection at T9. Treatment consisted of application of FS or EC into the lesion gap in GFS and GEC, which was left empty in L. GFS, GEC, L and SH were each further divided into 4 subgroups: One subgroup, consisting of 10 rats was subjected to behavioural and reflex testing before surgery and followed up on days 1,7, 14, 21, 28 post op and then sacrificed. Haemalaun or cresyl violet (CV) was used to identify neutrophils in parasagittal cord sections which were obtained on day 1 (n=7). Sections stained for quantification of microglia/macrophages using ED-1 on day 3 (n=7), day 7 (n=7) and day 28 (n=7 out of 10). Additionally, neural filament (NF) staining was chosen to detect axonal regeneration and the length of ingrowth into FS and EC, Luxol blue for myelination, Von Willebrand factor for vascularisation, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) staining for detection of astrocytes in glial scars on day 28. RESULTS: No adverse effects were observed in the treatment groups. Compared to L, GFS and GEC performed significantly better in the Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) score and hopping responses. Proprioceptive placing was markedly improved in FS and EC compared to L. Axonal regrowth was found in GFS and GEC--the regrowth in the GFS was accompanied by myelination and vascularisation. Glial scarring occurred in all groups. Discussion Both biomatrices improved functional recovery compared to L and no adverse effects were perceived.
|
|
|
|
Wennerstrand, J., Johnston, C., Roethlisberger-Holm, K., Erichsen, C., Eksell, P., & Drevemo, S. (2004). Kinematic evaluation of the back in the sport horse with back pain. Equine Vet J, 36(8), 707–711.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Earlier studies have developed a clinical tool to evaluate objectively the function of the equine back. The ability to differentiate horses with back pain from asymptomatic, fully functioning horses using kinematic measures from this tool has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To compare the kinematics of the back at walk and trot in riding horses with back dysfunction to the same parameters in asymptomatic sport horses. METHODS: The kinematics of the back in 12 horses with impaired performance and back pain were studied at walk and trot on a treadmill. Data were captured for 10 sees at 240 Hz. Range of movement (ROM) and intravertebral pattern symmetry of movement for flexion and extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) were derived from angular motion pattern data and the results compared to an earlier established database on asymptomatic riding horses. RESULTS: At walk, horses with back dysfunction had a ROM smaller for dorsoventral FE in the caudal thoracic region (T13 = 7.50 degrees, T17 = 7.71 degrees; P<0.05), greater for LB at T13 (8.13 degrees; P<0.001) and smaller for AR of the pelvis (10.97 degrees; P<0.05) compared to asymptomatic horses (FE-T13 = 8.28 degrees, FE-T17 = 8.49 degrees, LB-T13 = 6.34 degrees, AR-pelvis = 12.77 degrees). At trot, dysfunctional horses had a smaller (P<0.05) ROM for FE at the thoracic lumbar junction (T17 = 2.46 degrees, L1 = 2.60 degrees) compared to asymptomatic horses (FE-T17 = 3.07 degrees, FE-L1 = 3.12 degrees). CONCLUSIONS: The objective measurement technique can detect differences between back kinematics in riding horses with signs of back dysfunction and asymptomatic horses. The clinical manifestation of back pain results in diminished flexion/extension movement at or near the thoracic lumbar junction. However, before applying the method more extensively in practice it is necessary to evaluate it further, including measurements of patients whose diagnoses can be confirmed and long-term follow-ups of back patients after treatment. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Since the objective measurement technique can detect small movement differences in back kinematics, it should help to clinically describe and, importantly, objectively detect horses with back pain and dysfunction.
|
|
