The Effect of a Physiotherapy Intervention on Thoracolumbar Posture in Horses

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.

Use and repeatability of 3D light scanning to measure transverse dorsal profile size and symmetry in the thoracic region in horses

Equine epaxial muscle size, thoracolumbar profile and symmetry in horses is of clinical interest due to relationships with pain and pathology. Flexible-curve rulers have previously been used to gather reliable, objective measures of thoracic profile, however, 3D light-scanning offers a potential non-contact alternative method to estimate cross sectional area (CSA) of the region. 3D light-scans of the thoracic epaxial region were taken from ten endurance horses (7 geldings, 3 mares; 8±2 years). Total CSA of the combined epaxial musculature, using computer software, was calculated at scapula and T18 levels (depth: 15 cm). Intra and inter-rater (n=3) reliability of CSA measurements was assessed using Friedman’s analyses and post-hoc Wilcoxon rank tests (three repeated measures). Intraclass correlation estimates (ICC ± 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated (mean-rating, absolute-agreement, 2-way mixedeffects model). Paired t-tests assessed differences between right and left areas. No significant differences existed for transverse plane-cuts (scapula, T18 P>0.05) between light-scans. Right and left areas were significantly different at the withers (P=0.012) with the left side larger in 70% of scans, but no significant differences were found between sides at T18. No differences existed for different plane-cuts of the same horse (P=0.53; ICC: 0.76; CIs: 0.43-0.92). While reliability was reduced between all raters (P=0.02; ICC: 0.70; CIs: 0.56-0.82), no significant differences occurred between two different assessors experienced in using the software (P=0.88; ICC: 0.90; CIs: 0.82-0.95). Intra-rater reliability for assessing thoracic profile and inter-rater reliability ICC values with experienced analysts was interpreted as good/excellent. The results suggest 3D light-scanning is an objective, non-invasive method to record size and symmetry of the epaxial region in horses and warrants validity testing against current measurement methods such as the flexible-curve ruler.

Standing horse posture: a longer stance is more stable

Horses stand for most of each day. Although they can use various leg configurations (postures), they usually stand with vertical legs. Why? We addressed this question with a 2D quasi-static model having three rigid parts: a trunk, massless fore-limbs and massless rear limbs, with hinges at the shoulders, hips, and hooves. The postural parameter we varied was ℓg, the distance between the hooves. For a given ℓg, statics finds an equilibrium configuration which, with no muscle stabilization (i.e. using minimal effort) is unstable. We assume a horse uses that configuration. To measure the neuromuscular effort needed to stabilize this equilibrium, we added springs at the shoulder and hip; the larger the springs needed to stabilize the model (kmin), the more neuromuscular effort needed to stabilize the posture. A canted-in posture (small ℓg), observed habitually in some domestic horses, needs about twice the spring stiffness (representing twice the effort) as is needed with vertical or slightly splayed-out (large ℓg) legs. This relationship of posture and stability might explain the prevalence of vertical or slightly splayed-out legs in wild and healthy domestic horses and leaves as a puzzle why some horses stand canted-in.