2020
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222822
| View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Clinical assessment of spinal motion in horses is part of many routine clinical exams but remains highly subjective. A prerequisite for the quantification of spinal motion is the assessment of the expected normal range of motion and variability of back kinematics. The aim of this study was to objectively quantify spinal kinematics and between-measurement,-surface and-day variation in owner-sound horses. In an observational study, twelve ownersound horses were trotted 12 times on four different paths (hard/soft… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
(56 reference statements)
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the large scale on which pathology was suspected and the huge variety of scores per individual horse make this theory unlikely. Another reason why this explanation is unlikely is that Hardeman et al [ 10 ], when measuring range of motion and between measurement variation of spinal kinematics in 12 owner-sound horses in trot, found lower rather than higher ROM (Range Of Motion) for pelvis roll, pitch and yaw and for whole back flexion-extension and whole back lateral bending compared to the current study ( S6 Table ).…”
Section: Discussion/conclusioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…However, the large scale on which pathology was suspected and the huge variety of scores per individual horse make this theory unlikely. Another reason why this explanation is unlikely is that Hardeman et al [ 10 ], when measuring range of motion and between measurement variation of spinal kinematics in 12 owner-sound horses in trot, found lower rather than higher ROM (Range Of Motion) for pelvis roll, pitch and yaw and for whole back flexion-extension and whole back lateral bending compared to the current study ( S6 Table ).…”
Section: Discussion/conclusioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…All kinematic data was filtered, and analysed as previously described [ 10 ]. Segment angles (T12, T15, T18, L3, L5, S5 , TS) were calculated using the markers cranial and caudal to the marked vertebra in question.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations