|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Licka, T., Kapaun, M., & Peham, C. (2004). Influence of rider on lameness in trotting horses. Equine Vet J, 36(8), 734–736.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Equine lameness is commonly evaluated when the horse is being ridden, but the influence of the rider on the lameness has not been documented. OBJECTIVE: To document the effect of 2 riders of different training levels on the vertical movement of the head and croup. METHODS: Twenty mature horses were ridden at trot by an experienced dressage rider and a novice rider, as well as trotted in hand. Kinematic measurements of markers placed on the horse's head and sacral bone were carried out. The asymmetries of the vertical head and sacral bone motion were calculated as lameness parameters and compared with paired t tests. RESULTS: Trotting in hand, 17 horses showed forelimb lameness (1-4/10) and 13 hindlimb lameness (1-2/10). Intra-individually, 11 horses showed significant differences in forelimb lameness and 4 horses showed significant differences in hindlimb lameness when ridden. Over all horses, hindlimb lameness increased significantly under the dressage rider compared to unridden horses. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a rider can alter the degree of lameness; however, its influence cannot be predicted for an individual horse. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: In order to evaluate mild lameness, horses should be evaluated at trot both under saddle and in hand. If lameness is exacerbated, a second rider may be helpful; the level of training of the rider should be taken into consideration.
|
|
|
|
Bystrom, A., Roepstorff, L., & Johnston, C. (2006). Effects of draw reins on limb kinematics. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 452–456.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: No data exist on the GRF-kinematics relation due to changes caused by equestrian interventions. HYPOTHESIS: Through the judicious use of draw reins the rider can influence the kinematics of the horse to meet stated goals of dressage training. Relating the results to previously published kinetic data of the same experiment implies a possible relationship between kinetics and kinematics. METHODS: The kinematics of 8 sound Swedish Warmblood horses were measured whilst the horses were being ridden with and without draw reins. Three conditions were evaluated: 1) draw reins only (DR), 2) combination of draw reins and normal reins (NR+DR) and 3) normal reins only (NR). RESULTS: Head and neck angles were significantly decreased by the draw rein but 4-5 times more so for DR when with NR+DR. The forelimb position at hoof lift-off was significantly more caudal with DR. In the hind limb the hip joint extended more quickly and the hock joint flexed more with NR+DR than with NR. Compared to DR the hip joint angular pattern was not significantly different, but the pelvis was more horizontal. CONCLUSION: Riding with a draw rein can have significant influence on the kinematics of the horse. Some of the observed changes can be coupled to changes in kinetics. The hock joint angle seems to be a fairly reliable indicator of load on the hind limb and the angle of femur appears important for hind limb propulsion, when considered in conjunction with the orientation of the pelvis. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: These findings are important for riders and trainers, as kinematic changes are what trainers observe. It is thereby important to ascertain which kinematic changes are consistently coupled to changes in kinetics in order for trainers to be able to judge correctly the success of intended goals. Further studies are warranted to validate and confirm suggested relationships between kinetics and kinematics.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Summerley, H. L., Thomason, J. J., & Bignell, W. W. (1998). Effect of rider and riding style on deformation of the front hoof wall in warmblood horses. Equine Vet J Suppl, (26), 81–85.
Abstract: A rider modifies the weight distribution and dynamic balance of the horse. But what effect does a rider have on the mechanical behaviour of the hoof during each stance phase? Does riding style have any effect on this behaviour? We attempted to answer these questions using strains recorded from 5 rosette strain gauges glued to the surface of the front hooves of 4 Warmblood horses. Comparisons were made between strains with and without a rider, and when the rider was sitting, rising at a trot, or in a forward seated position. The change in strains from trot to lead or nonlead at a canter, and the effect of turning were also studied. Changing lead at a canter had as least as much effect on strain magnitudes as did turning; strains were up to 43% higher for the nonlead foot, but with little redistribution. Perhaps surprisingly, strains were significantly lower on the quarters by up to 30% with a rider than without, with a 10% increase or decrease at the toe, depending on the individual. Riding style changed strain magnitudes by up to 20% and also caused strain redistribution: strains were higher medially for sitting, and laterally for forward seat, with strains for a rising trot being more evenly distributed and intermediate in magnitude. Studying the range of, and causes of variation in hoof wall strain gives baseline data aimed, in the long term, at providing a biomechanical definition of hoof balance.
|
|
|
|
Powers, P., & Harrison, A. (2002). Effects of the rider on the linear kinematics of jumping horses. Sports Biomech, 1(2), 135–146.
Abstract: This study examined the effects of the rider on the linear projectile kinematics of show-jumping horses. SVHS video recordings (50 Hz) of eight horses jumping a vertical fence 1 m high were used for the study. Horses jumped the fence under two conditions: loose (no rider or tack) and ridden. Recordings were digitised using Peak Motus. After digitising the sequences, each rider's digitised data were removed from the ridden horse data so that three conditions were examined: loose, ridden (including the rider's data) and riderless (rider's data removed). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences between ridden and loose conditions for CG height at take-off (p < 0.001), CG distance to the fence at take-off (p = 0.001), maximum CG during the suspension phase (p < 0.001), CG position over the centre of the fence (p < 0.001), CG height at landing (p < 0.001), and vertical velocity at take-off (p < 0.001). The results indicated that the rider's effect on jumping horses was primarily due to behavioural changes in the horses motion (resulting from the rider's instruction), rather than inertial effects (due to the positioning of the rider on the horse). These findings have implications for the coaching of riders and horses.
|
|
