Analyze Diet
American journal of veterinary research2012; 73(3); 368-374; doi: 10.2460/ajvr.73.3.368

Comparison of an inertial sensor system with a stationary force plate for evaluation of horses with bilateral forelimb lameness.

Abstract: To assess the analytic sensitivity of an inertial sensor system for detection of the more severely affected forelimb in horses with bilateral lameness. Methods: 18 adult horses with forelimb lameness. Methods: Horses were fitted with inertial sensors and evaluated for lameness with a stationary force plate as they were trotted in a straight line. Inertial sensor-derived measurements for vertical head movement asymmetry (HMA) and vector sum (VS) of maximum and minimum head height differences between right and left halves of the stride were used to predict differences in mean peak vertical force (PVF) as a percentage of body weight between the right and left forelimbs. Repeatability was compared by calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each variable. Correct classification percentages for the lamer forelimb were determined by use of a stationary force plate as the standard. Results: SEs of the prediction of difference in PVF between the right and left forelimbs from HMA and VS were 6.1% and 5.2%, respectively. Head movement asymmetry (ICC, 0.72) was less repeatable than PVF (ICC, 0.86) and VS (ICC, 0.84). Associations were positive and significant between HMA (R(2) = 0.73) and VS (R(2) = 0.81) and the difference in PVF between the right and left forelimbs. Correct classification percentages for HMA and VS for detecting the lamer forelimb were 83.3% and 77.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Results suggested that an inertial sensor system to measure vertical asymmetry (HMA and VS) due to forelimb lameness in horses trotting in a straight line has adequate analytic sensitivity for clinical use. Additional studies are required to assess specificity of the system.
Publication Date: 2012-03-01 PubMed ID: 22369528DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.73.3.368Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study compares an inertial sensor system with a stationary force plate for assessing lameness in horses. It finds the inertial sensor system to be a highly sensitive method for detecting differences in the severity of lameness in the forelimb, affirming its usefulness for clinical use and suggesting the need for further studies to evaluate its specificity.

Methods

  • This study involved 18 adult horses exhibiting bilateral forelimb lameness.
  • These horses were fitted with inertial sensors and assessed for lameness as they trotted in a straight line over a stationary force plate.
  • The researchers took measurements for vertical head movement asymmetry (HMA) and the vector sum (VS) of maximum and minimum head height differences during both halves of the horse’s stride.
  • These measurements were used to predict differences in peak vertical force (PVF), a measure of lameness, as a percentage of the horse’s body weight between the right and left forelimbs. The repeatability of each of these variables was also compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
  • The findings from the inertial sensor system were validated using a stationary force plate, considered the gold standard in such assessments.

Results

  • The study found that the standard errors in predicting the difference in PVF between the right and left forelimbs using HMA and VS measurements were only 6.1% and 5.2%, respectively, indicating a high level of accuracy.
  • Repeatability was strong for PVF (ICC, 0.86) and VS (ICC, 0.84), though less so for HMA (ICC, 0.72).
  • There were significant positive correlations between HMA (R(2) = 0.73) and VS (R(2) = 0.81) and the difference in PVF between the right and left forelimbs, indicating that as either HMA or VS increase, so does the PVF, hence the severity of lameness.
  • The success rate in correctly classifying which forelimb was more severely affected based on HMA and VS was 83.3% and 77.8% respectively.

Conclusions

  • The study found the inertial sensor system to be a highly sensitive tool for detecting and assessing the severity of forelimb lameness in horses.
  • This suggests that the system has strong clinical potential for use in equine veterinary settings.
  • However, the authors also suggest that further studies are required to assess the specificity of the system or how accurately it can identify non-lameness.

Cite This Article

APA
Keegan KG, MacAllister CG, Wilson DA, Gedon CA, Kramer J, Yonezawa Y, Maki H, Pai PF. (2012). Comparison of an inertial sensor system with a stationary force plate for evaluation of horses with bilateral forelimb lameness. Am J Vet Res, 73(3), 368-374. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.73.3.368

Publication

ISSN: 1943-5681
NlmUniqueID: 0375011
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 73
Issue: 3
Pages: 368-374

Researcher Affiliations

Keegan, Kevin G
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. keegank@missouri.edu
MacAllister, Charles G
    Wilson, David A
      Gedon, Carl A
        Kramer, Joanne
          Yonezawa, Yoshiharu
            Maki, Hiromitchi
              Pai, P Frank

                MeSH Terms

                • Animals
                • Biomechanical Phenomena
                • Forelimb / physiopathology
                • Gait
                • Horse Diseases / diagnosis
                • Horse Diseases / physiopathology
                • Horses
                • Lameness, Animal / diagnosis
                • Lameness, Animal / physiopathology
                • Monitoring, Ambulatory / instrumentation
                • Monitoring, Ambulatory / methods
                • Monitoring, Ambulatory / veterinary
                • Motor Activity
                • Pressure
                • Wireless Technology / instrumentation

                Citations

                This article has been cited 34 times.