SummaryBackgroundObjective lameness assessment is gaining more importance in a clinical setting, necessitating availability of reference values.ObjectivesTo investigate the between ‐path, ‐trial and ‐day variation, between and within horses, in the locomotion symmetry of horses in regular use that are perceived sound.Study designObservational study with replicated measurement sessions.MethodsTwelve owner‐sound horses were trotted on the straight line and on the lunge. Kinematic data were collected from these horses using 3D optical motion capture. Examinations were repeated on 12 occasions over the study which lasted 42 days in total. For each horse, measurements were grouped as five replicates on the first and second measurement days and two replicates on the third measurement day. Between measurement days 2 and 3, every horse had a break from examination of at least 28 days. Previously described symmetry parameters were calculated: RUD and RDD (Range Up/Down Difference; difference in upward/downward movement between right and left halves of a stride); MinDiff and MaxDiff (difference between the two minima/maxima of the movement); HHDswing and HHDstance (Hip Hike Difference‐swing/‐stance; difference between the upward movement of the tuber coxae during swingphase/stancephase). Data are described by the between‐measurement variation for each parameter. A linear mixed model was used to test for the effect of time, surface and path. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to access repeatability.ResultsMean between‐measurement variation was (MinDiff, MaxDiff, RUD, RDD): 13, 12, 20, 16 mm (head); 4, 3, 6, 4 mm (withers) and 5, 4, 6, 6 mm (pelvis); (HHDswing, HHDstance): 7 and 7 mm. More between‐measurement variation is seen on the first measurement day compared to the second and third measurement days. In general, less variation is seen with increasing number of repetitions. Less between‐measurement variation is seen on hard surface compared to soft surface. More between‐measurement variation is seen on the circle compared to the straight line. Between‐horse variation was clearly larger than within‐horse variation. ICC values for the head, withers and pelvis symmetry parameters were 0.68 (head), 0.76 (withers), 0.85 (pelvis).Main limitationsLunge measurements on a hard surface were not performed.ConclusionsBetween‐measurement variation may be substantial, especially in head motion. This should be considered when interpreting clinical data after repeated measurements, as in routine lameness assessments.

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 straight line, soft lunge left and right). Measurements were divided over three days, with five repetitions on day one and two, and two repetitions on day three (recheck) which occurred 28-55 days later. Optical motion capture was used to collect kinematic data. Elements of the outcome were: 1) Ranges of Motion (ROM) with confidence intervals per path and surface, 2) a variability model to calculate between-measurement variation and test the effect of time, surface and path, 3) intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to determine repeatability. ROM was lowest on the hard straight line. Cervical lateral bending was doubled on the left compared to the right lunge. Mean variation for the flexion-extension and lateral bending of the whole back were 0.8 and 1 degrees. Pelvic motion showed a variation of 1.0 (pitch), 0.7 (yaw) and 1.3 (roll) degrees. For these five parameters, a tendency for more variation on the hard surface and reduced variation with increased repetitions was observed. More variation was seen on the recheck (p<0.001). ICC values for pelvic rotations were between 0.76 and 0.93, for the whole back flexion-extension and lateral bending between 0.51 and 0.91. Between-horse variation was substantially higher than within-horse variation. In conclusion, ROM and variation in spinal biomechanics are horse-specific and small, necessitating individual analysis and making subjective and objective clinical assessment of spinal kinematics challenging.

No abstract