Evaluation of parameters obtained from two systems of gait analysis

Abstract

Background The technical difficulties in utilising the force platform have stimulated the use and development of other gait systems. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the values of gait parameters obtained from a pressure-sensitive walkway and from a treadmill in healthy dogs during walking.

Gait Analysis of Healthy Rhesus Monkeys Using a Pressure-sensing Walkway System

“…This is the rst study to evaluate and access temporo-spatial and kinetic data for rhesus monkeys using a pressure-sensing walkway system. This sensor system has been widely applied to the gait study of very small to large animals and has also used in clinical human studies, because it provides automated calculation of gait parameters without additional technical equipment, such as markers on the skin and calibrated camera setups (21)(22)(23). Our results showed that there were no signi cant differences between temporo-spatial and kinetic gait parameter values, but there were detectable right-left symmetries between the limbs on the opposite side.…”

The Effect of Calibration Method on Repeatability and Reproducibility of Pressure Mat Data in a Canine Population

“…In agreement with other authors 9 however, the %bw distribution remained the same independent of calibration method, with $30%bw on each forelimb and 20%bw on each hindlimb. The %bw distribution is consistent between pressure-sensitive walkway studies 4,7,8,12,13 making it a potentially more useful measure to compare between studies. Previous studies have shown that there was no statistical difference in the sensitivity of PVF, VI or %bw distribution when used to compare limb usage after orthopaedic procedures, 27 making the %bw a valuable tool for assessment of lameness.…”

“…Values reported in the present study are in agreement with those reported in other studies, for example, PVF %bw ranging from 54 to 58% and 33 to 42% and VI %bw ranging from 17 to 23% and 10 to 13% for forelimbs and hindlimbs respectively, in Labradors, Greyhounds and German Shepherd dogs. 1,[5][6][7][8] Although convention dictates that forces be expressed as % bw to try to normalize between dogs of different weight, 14,18 our data suggest that PVF%bw by itself cannot be used to make direct comparisons when different calibration protocols are used. In agreement with other authors 9 however, the %bw distribution remained the same independent of calibration method, with $30%bw on each forelimb and 20%bw on each hindlimb.…”

“…Some studies investigated single breeds including pitbulls, 5 Greyhounds, 1,6 German Shepherds 7 and, most commonly, Labradors. 6,[8][9][10] Other studies reported on heterogenous populations of mixed, 11 or medium-large breeds. 12,13 In the studies of mixed populations, [11][12][13] values for peak vertical force expressed as a percentage of bodyweight (PVF %bw) ranged from 43 to 74%bw in the forelimbs, and from 27 to 51%bw in the hindlimbs.…”

“…Vertical impulse, a measure of total force over time, again expressed as a percentage of bodyweight (VI %bw) was reported to range from 17 to 24%bw in the forelimbs, and 10 to 16%bw in the hindlimbs. Even when a single breed is studied, 6,8,9 a wide range of values are reported, ranging from PVF in the forelimbs of 56 to 95%bw, in the hindlimbs of 35 to 65%bw, with VI in forelimbs of 17 to 35%bw and 10 to 21%bw. Such variability in results makes it challenging to establish 'normal' ranges, or to make meaningful comparisons between studies.…”