The Effect of Ground Poles and Elastic Resistance Bands on Longissimus Dorsi and Rectus Abdominus Muscle Activity During Equine Walk and Trot

Trunk kinematics and limb movement of horses walking backwards and forwards in hand and lifting a single limb

Equine physiotherapy commonly includes basic exercises such as walking backward (BW) and voluntary lifting of single limbs (SLL), but trunk movements during these have not been studied. In order to compare the trunk kinematics during BW and SLL with forward walking (FW), nine horses were measured in FW, BW and during SLL triggered by tactile cue. Kinematics were obtained from skin markers captured by ten high-speed video cameras. Trunk angles were calculated in sagittal and horizontal planes from withers, dorsal to spinous processes of the 16th thoracic vertebra (T16), 2nd and 4th sacral vertebrae (S2, S4), WT16S2 and T16S2S4 respectively. From the hooves, maximum hoof height during swing phase and horizontal distance between hoof and median body plane during swing and stance phases were determined. Dorsoventral range of motion (ROM) and maximum flexion of WT16S2 was significantly larger in BW than in FW, while laterolateral ROM was significantly smaller during hindlimb swing phase in BW and SLL than in FW. In contrast, dorsoventral ROM of T16S2S4 was significantly smaller during stance and swing phases of hindlimbs in BW compared to FW, and throughout the movement. During forelimb swing phase, T16S2S4 ROM was significantly larger in BW than SLL. Hindhoof height in SLL was significantly higher than in FW. Distance between median body plane and hooves was significantly larger in BW than in FW, and significantly larger in BW than in SLL for hindlimb swing phase. In BW, increased lumbosacral stabilisation and the larger area of support created by fore- and hindlimbs may represent a strategy to enhance body stabilisation, as BW entails some insecurity.

Advances in the Clinical Diagnostics to Equine Back Pain: A Review of Imaging and Functional Modalities

Back pain is common in ridden horses. Back diseases in horses include Impinging Dorsal Spinous Processes, Ventral Spondylosis, Osteoarthritis of Articular Process, Intervertebral Discs Disease, Vertebral Fractures, Conformational Abnormalities, Desmopathy of the Supraspinous Ligament, Desmopathy of the Intraspinous Ligament, and Longissimus Muscle Strain. Back pain may also develop as a result of lameness (particularly hindlimb lameness). A poorly fitting saddle and an unbalanced rider are also considered important factors influencing the development of back pain in horses. The conventional diagnosis of equine back pain includes a clinical examination and diagnostic imaging examination using ultrasound, radiography, and thermography. Advanced diagnostic modalities of equine back pain involve the objectification of standard procedures through the use of algometers, a lameness locator, biometric mats, and the geometric morphometrics method. In addition to modern diagnostic methods, such as computed tomography and scintigraphy, advances in the diagnosis of equine back pain include the use of electromyography and functional electrical stimulation. The aim of this review article is to familiarize clinicians with the usefulness and capabilities of conventional diagnostic protocols and advanced diagnostic modalities. Although orthopedic examination and traditional diagnostic methods will remain the foundation of the diagnosis of back diseases, modern methods meet the growing expectations towards high-performance horses and allow for deeper diagnostics and objective monitoring of rehabilitation and training progress.

Electromyography of the Multifidus Muscle in Horses Trotting During Therapeutic Exercises

Thoracolumbar pain has been identified in both human and equine patients. Rehabilitation and conditioning programs have focused specifically on improving trunk and abdominal muscle function (1–5). Equine exercise programs routinely incorporate ground poles and training devices for the similar goals of increasing spinal and core stability and strength (6–8). The multifidus muscle has been an area of focus due to atrophy associated with disease (9). To date, there have been no reports on the activity of the multifidus muscle in horses in relation to therapeutic exercises. Our objectives were to use electromyography to determine the average work performed and peak muscle activity of the multifidus in horses trotting, trotting over ground poles, trotting while wearing a resistance band-based training device and trotting while wearing the training device over ground poles. We hypothesized that ground poles and the training device would each increase average work performed and peak multifidus muscle activity. Right and left cranial thoracic locations showed significant increased muscle work and peak activation when horses were trotted over ground poles versus without. The peak activation was significantly greater in horses trotting over poles in both lumbar regions, but there was no significant change in peak activation in either location due to the training device. When the influence of the training device was investigated without ground poles, left caudal thoracic muscle work and peak activity, and right lumbar muscle work were significantly lower when using the training device, as compared to without. When the training device was combined with trotting over ground poles, both left and right caudal thoracic regions showed significantly lower muscle work and peak activity when the device was used. There was no significant difference between with and without the device in either left or right lumbar muscle work. In conclusion, implementing ground poles can be an effective strategy to increase the activation of the multifidus muscle, however, caution should be taken when incorporating the use of a resistance band training device as muscle work and peak activation were significantly reduced in most locations. Further study should be performed in regards to the training device to determine its effects on epaxial musculature.