Summary There has been no large‐scale study of the clinical signs of sacroiliac (SI) joint region pain and its association with lameness and/or thoracolumbar pain. Horses with a positive response to infiltration of local anaesthetic solution around the SI joint regions (SI block) and/or abnormal radiopharmaceutical uptake (RU) in the region of the SI joints were included. History, clinical signs, diagnostic imaging findings, response to SI block, and concurrent lameness and/or thoracolumbar pain were recorded. Horses (n = 296) were divided into 2 groups: SI joint region pain only (Group 1, n = 43) and SI joint region pain and concurrent source(s) of pain (Group 2, n = 253). Clinical signs in Group 1 included increased tension in the longissimus dorsi muscles (40%), restricted flexibility of the thoracolumbar region (44%), trunk stiffness during exercise (61%) and poor hindlimb impulsion (56%). When ridden 65% had a poor contact with the bit, in 81% canter quality was worse than trot, and 35% bucked or kicked out with a hindlimb during canter. In both Groups 1 and 2 clinical signs were seen in a significantly greater proportion of horses during ridden work than lungeing (P<0.0001). Following SI block, 98% of horses showed dramatic improvement in clinical signs, including greater overall movement through the trunk, increased hindlimb impulsion and better quality canter. Abnormal RU in the SI joint regions was seen in 85/180 (47%) horses. Of horses with a positive response to SI block that underwent scintigraphy, only 43% had abnormal RU. Per rectum ultrasonographic examination of the SI joint region revealed abnormalities in 41/129 (32%) horses. Clinical signs of SI joint region pain are worse when horses are ridden. Sacroiliac joint region diagnostic analgesia is a useful, safe but nonspecific block. Ultrasonography and scintigraphy can provide additional information in some horses, but negative results do not preclude SI joint region pain.

SummaryBackgroundHorses show compensatory head movement in hindlimb lameness and compensatory pelvis movement in forelimb lameness but little is known about the relationship of withers movement symmetry with head and pelvic asymmetry in horses with naturally occurring gait asymmetries.ObjectivesTo document head, withers and pelvic movement asymmetry and timing differences in horses with naturally occurring gait asymmetries.Study designRetrospective analysis of gait data.MethodsHead, withers and pelvic movement asymmetry and timing of displacement minima and maxima were quantified from inertial sensors in 163 Thoroughbreds during trot‐ups on hard ground. Horses were divided into 4 subgroups using the direction of head and withers movement asymmetry. Scatter plots of head vs. pelvic movement asymmetry illustrated how the head–withers relationship distinguishes between contralateral and ipsilateral head–pelvic movement asymmetry. Independent t test or Mann–Whitney U test (P<0.05) compared pelvic movement asymmetry and timing differences between groups.ResultsThe relationship between head and withers asymmetry (i.e. same sided or opposite sided asymmetry) predicts the relationship between head and pelvic asymmetry in 69–77% of horses. Pelvic movement symmetry was significantly different between horses with same sign vs. opposite sign of head–withers asymmetry (P<0.0001). Timing of the maximum head height reached after contralateral (‘sound’) stance was delayed compared to withers (P = 0.02) and pelvis (P = 0.04) in horses with contralateral head–withers asymmetry.Main limitationsThe clinical lameness status of the horses was not investigated.ConclusionIn the Thoroughbreds with natural gait asymmetries investigated here, the direction of head vs. withers movement asymmetry identifies the majority of horses with ipsilateral and contralateral head and pelvic movement asymmetries. Withers movement should be further investigated for differentiating between forelimb and hindlimb lame horses. Horses with opposite sided head and withers asymmetry significantly delay the upward movement of the head after ‘sound’ forelimb stance.

SULF1/SULF2 enzymes regulate the activities of several growth factors by selective hydrolysis of 6-O-sulphates of heparan sulphate proteoglycan co-receptors, the sulfation of which is essential for signal transduction of some ligand/receptor interactions but not others. This study demonstrates the existence of SULF1 variants with a wide spectrum of splicing patterns in mammalian tumours. The levels and relative proportions of SULF1/SULF2 splice variants markedly vary in different tumours with a potential to regulate cell growth differentially. Although mammalian Sulf1 compared with Sulf2 gene generates a much larger number of splice variants, both enzymes follow generally similar distribution and signalling association trends in hepatocellular carcinomas.

No abstract