Objective evaluation versus subjective evaluation of flexion tests in the pelvic limb of horses

Authors

  • Marcos da Silva Azevedo Universidade Federal do Pampa, Departamento de Clínica de Grandes Animais, Uruguaiana/RS, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5717-1781
  • Flávio Desessards De La Côrte Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Departamento de Clínica de Grandes Animais, Santa Maria/RS, Brazil
  • Ricardo Pozzobon Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Departamento de Clínica de Grandes Animais, Santa Maria/RS, Brazil
  • Stefano Leite Dau Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Departamento de Clínica de Grandes Animais, Santa Maria/RS, Brazil
  • Miguel Gallio Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Departamento de Clínica de Grandes Animais, Santa Maria/RS, Brazil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1678-4456.bjvras.2019.157248

Keywords:

Equine, Flexion test, Inertial sensors, Lameness Locator

Abstract

The agreement between subjective and objective evaluation methods was studied to identify claudication in the pelvic limbs of horses before and after flexion tests were performed. Twenty-nine horses were equipped with a wireless system of inertial sensors and evaluated during seven times while trotting. Videos were recorded to be evaluated by three veterinarians, with different levels of experience, to evaluate the agreement between the two different methods and between the evaluators. The evaluators and the objective evaluation had a low rate of agreement, with the exception of moderate agreement between the objective evaluation and evaluator 1 to identify lameness after the left total flexion and moderate agreement in evaluating the response to the tests, between objective evaluation and evaluator 2, after right
distal flexion. This shows that there was a low agreement among the evaluators and between them and the objective evaluation for identifying lameness, measuring the degree of lameness and the response to the flexion tests.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AAEP: American Association of Equine Practitioners. Guide to veterinary services for horse shows. 7th ed. Lexington, Kentucky: AAEP; 1999.

Armentrout AR, Beard WL, White BJ, Lillich J. D. A comparative study of proximal hindlimb flexion in horses: 5 versus 60 seconds. Equine Vet J. 2012;44(4):420-4. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00474.x. PMid:21923880.

Baxter GM, Stashak TS. Examination for lamenesss. In: Baxter GM Adams and Stashak’s lameness in horses. 6th ed. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing; 2011. p. 128-233.

Fuller CJ, Bladon BM, Driver AJ, Barr AR. The intra- and inter-assessor reliability of measurement of functional outcome by lameness scoring in horses. Vet J. 2006;171(2):281-6. https://10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.10.012.

Keegan KG, Dent EV, Wilson DA, Janicek J, Kramer J, Lacarrubba A, Walsh DM, Cassells MW, Esther TM, Schiltz P, Frees KE, Wilhite CL, Clark JM, Pollitt CC, Shaw R, Norris T. Repeatability of subjective evaluation of lameness in horses. Equine Vet J. 2010;42(2):92-7. https://10.2746/ 042516409X479568.

Keegan KG, Kramer J, Yonezawa Y, Maki H, Pai PF, Dent EV, Kellerman TE, Wilson DA, Reed SK. Assessment of repeatability of awireless, inertial sensor-based system for horses. Am J Vet Res. 2011;72(9):1156-63. https://10.2460/ ajvr.72.9.1156.

Keegan KG, Wilson DA, Wilson DJ, Smith B, Gaughan EM, Pleasant RS, Lillich JD, Kramer J, Howard RD, BaconMiller C, Davis EG, May KA, Cheramie HS, Valentino WL, Van Harreveld PD. Evaluation of mild lameness in horses trotting on a treadmill by clinicians and interns or residents and correlation of their assessments with kinematic gait analysis. Am J Vet Res. 1998;59(11):1370-7. PMid:9829392.

Keegan KG, Yonezawa Y, Pai PF, Wilson DA, Kramer J. Evaluation of a sensor-based system of motion analysis for detection and quantification of forelimb and hind limb lameness in horses. Am J Vet Res. 2004;65(5):665-70. https://doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2004.65.665

Keegan KG. Evidence-based lameness detection and quantification. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract. 2007;23(2):403- 23. https://10.1016/j.cveq.2007.04.008. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310. PMid:843571.

Marshall JF, Lund DG, Voute LC. Use of a wireless, inertial sensor-based system to objectively evaluate flexion tests in the horse. Equine Vet J Suppl. 2012;44(43):8-11. https://10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00611.x.

McCracken MJ, Kramer J, Keegan KG, Lopes M, Wilson DA, Reed SK, Lacarrubba A, Rasch M. Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation. Equine Vet J. 2012;44(6):652- 6. https://10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00571.x.

McIlwraith CW. Diseases of joints, tendons, ligaments and related structures. In: Stashak TS. Adams’ lameness in horses. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2002. p. 459- 644.

Parkes RS, Weller R, Groth AM, May S, Pfau T. Evidence of the development of ‘domain-restricted’ expertise in the recognition of asymmetric motion characteristics of hindlimb lameness in the horse. Equine Vet J. 2009;41(2):112-7. htt ps://10.2746/042516408X343000.

Ross MW. Manipulation. In: Ross MW, Dyson SJ. Diagnosis and management of lameness in the horse. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2011a. p. 80-8. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-6069-7.00008-0.

Ross MW. The lameness examination. In: Ross MW, Dyson SJ. Diagnosis and management of lameness in the horse. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2011b. p. 1-79.

Downloads

Published

2019-12-03

How to Cite

Azevedo, M. da S., De La Côrte, F. D., Pozzobon, R., Dau, S. L., & Gallio, M. (2019). Objective evaluation versus subjective evaluation of flexion tests in the pelvic limb of horses. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science, 56(4), e157248. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1678-4456.bjvras.2019.157248

Most read articles by the same author(s)