The results from the simulation build upon previous work carried out in the field, applying ink thermal coefficients which vary with temperature for the first time. These results compliment clinical knowledge, suggesting that a proactive increase in fluence during a course of treatments is likely to improve the response to laser therapy.

Kinematic assessments of the upper limb during activities of daily living (ADLs) are used as an objective measure of upper limb function. The implementation of ADLs varies between studies; whilst some make use of props and define a functional target, others use simplified tasks to simulate the movements in ADLs. Simulated tasks have been used as an attempt to reduce the large movement variability associated with the upper limb. However, it is not known whether simulated tasks replicate the movements required to complete ADLs or reduce movement variability. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of simulated tasks in upper limb assessments in comparison to functional movements. Therefore answering the following questions: Do simulated tasks replicate the movements required of the upper limb to perform functional activities? Do simulated tasks reduce intra- and inter-subject movement variability? Fourteen participants were asked to perform five functional tasks (eat, wash, retrieve from shelf, comb and perineal care) using two approaches: a functional and a simulated approach. Joint rotations were measured using an optoelectronic system. Differences in movement and movement variability between functional and simulated tasks were evaluated for the thorax, shoulder, elbow/forearm and wrist rotations. Simulated tasks did not accurately replicate the movements required for ADLs and there were minimal differences in movement variability between the two approaches. The study recommends the use of functional tasks with props for future assessments of the upper limb.

11Background: Assessment of the range of axial rotation of the Glenohumeral joint will

It is widely accepted that canine breeds stand and move differently. The prevalence of various musculoskeletal disorders such as hip and elbow dysplasia is also different between breeds. German shepherd dog (GSD) and Labrador retriever dog (LRD) are two large breeds with different conformations that have high prevalence of these disorders. This study quantifies the movement and standing posture of twelve healthy GSDs and twelve healthy LRDs to identify biomechanical similarities and differences that may be linked to sub-optimal hip and elbow mechanics. A pressure walkway and a motion capture system obtained measures of kinetics, kinematics and conformation during standing and trot. During standing, LRDs carry a greater percentage of the weight on the forelimbs (69%±5% vs. GSDs: 62% ±2%, p<0.001) and their body Centre of Pressure (CoP) is located more cranially (p<0.001). GSDs had a greater pelvic tilt (79˚±8 vs. 66˚±9˚, p = 0.004), more flexed stifles (44˚±9˚vs. LRDs: 34˚±10˚, p<0.05) and hocks (58˚±11˚vs. 26˚±9˚, p<0.01) and more extended hips (-10˚±11˚vs. 30˚±12˚, p<0.001). During trot, the GSDs' CoP had a longer anterior-posterior trajectory (151%±22% vs. LRDs: 93%±25% of the withers height, p<0.001). Stride parameters and loading of limbs were similar when normalised to the size and weight of the dog, respectively. The LRDs had a more extended thoracolumbar angle (p<0.001) and a less flexed lumbosacral angle (p<0.05). The LRDs' hip remained flexed during trot whereas the GSDs' hip joint was less flexed during swing (p<0.001) and more extended in late stance and early swing (p<0.001). In conclusion, the LRDs and GSDs differ in the way they stand and move and this would result in different loading pattern of the joints. Further investigation is required to determine the extent to which biomechanical differences are linked to musculoskeletal problems presented clinically.