Supporting forelimb lameness: clinical judgement vs. computerised symmetry measurement.

This study compared how a trained equine orthopaedic surgeon’s subjective assessment of lameness in horses matched up with measurements taken by a computerized motion analysis system. The research found that while both methods identified lameness in the same leg, the degree of lameness differed in about 20% of cases.

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare the identification and grading of supporting forelimb lameness in horses as determined by a skilled equine orthopaedic surgeon and a computerized motion analysis system, in this case, the SELSPOT II system.

• The researchers wanted to examine if modern technology could contribute to more accurate and objective analysis in veterinary practices, in comparison to the traditional judgement by professionals.

Methodology

For carrying out this research, the researchers used the following methods:

• 29 horses exhibiting supporting forelimb lameness were trotted on a treadmill. The horses’ movements were recorded using the SELSPOT II system while also being observed by the veterinarian.
• The system measured the vertical motion of the horses’ head, which was then analyzed using Fourier transform to determine symmetry percentages.
• Simultaneously, the equine orthopaedic surgeon evaluated and graded the lameness based on normal clinical procedures.

Results

Following the comparison of both methodologies, the results revealed:

• Both the motion analysis system and the veterinarian identified lameness in the same leg of each horse. This demonstrates a consensus in identification of the lameness location.
• However, the grading of lameness – the severity measurement – differed in six out of the 29 horses. This indicates a small disparity between human judgement and automated motion analysis.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study’s findings suggest:

• The computerized motion analysis system can serve as a useful tool to support and possibly enhance the traditional subjective assessments carried out by veterinarians.
• While both techniques can consistently identify the location of lameness, there is a difference in the subjective severity grading between human judgment and the systems algorithm.
• The application of advanced technologies like this could thus potentially lead to more accurate and standardized lameness grading, making it an important area for further research.