Effect of three types of horseshoes and unshod feet on selected non‐podal forelimb kinematic variables measured by an extremity mounted inertial measurement unit sensor system in sound horses at the trot under conditions of treadmill and soft geotextile surface exercise

Abstract

Therapeutic farriery is part of the management of certain orthopaedic conditions. Non-podal parameters are important as most horses shod with therapeutic shoes are expected to perform again and the choice of shoe type may be influenced by the effects they may have on gait. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the effects of three different shoe designs and unshod front feet on forelimb non-podal kinematic variables using an extremity mounted inertial measurement unit (IMU) system under conditions of treadmill and overground exercise on a soft geotextile surface at the trot. Ten sound horses with no underlying orthopaedic problem were instrumented with eight IMUs at distal radii, tibia and third metacarpal/tarsal regions. Measurements were performed during four consecutive days. During the first three days, the three shoe types were randomly selected per horse and day. On the fourth day, all horses were tested unshod. Data were collected at the trot on a treadmill, and on a soft geotextile surface. Specifically designed software and a proprietary algorithm processed the accelerometer and gyroscope signals to obtain orientation and temporal data to describe selected kinematic variables predetermined by the system. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences between shoe type and surface. The presence of shoes produced significant changes in spatiotemporal variables which seemed to be related to shoe mass rather than shoe design as there were no significant differences found between different shoe types. Shod horses showed a gait characterised by an increased range of motion (ROM) of the fore limbs. Previously reported effects of the investigated shoes on podal kinematics do not seem to affect the investigated kinematic variables indicating perhaps a compensatory effect occurring at some level in the extremity.

Benefits and risks of barefoot harness racing in Standardbred trotters

“…One such study has shown that in unshod horses at a slow trot, the range of vertical displacement of the scapular spine, representing movement of the trunk, is 10% lower than in shod horses (Willemen, Savelberg, & Barne‐veld, 1999). Another study has found that unshod horses at slow trot (~3.3 m/s) show 7.9% less range of motion of the forelimb compared with shod horses, with the effect being more pronounced on a soft geotextile surface (Stutz, Vidondo, Ramseyer, Maninchedda, & Cruz, 2018). The relevance of these findings for high‐speed trotting remains to be investigated, but if the 8%–10% reduction in body vertical displacement persists at high speed, there could be a positive impact on racing performance.…”

Assessment of the effect of horseshoes with and without traction adaptations on the gait kinetics of nonlame horses during a trot on a concrete runway

“…Prior to study initiation, a power analysis and sample size calculation a were performed. Given the mean ± SD GRF data reported in a previous study 1 and assuming a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05) and power of 80% (β = 0.20), it was determined that a minimum of 5 horses would need to be evaluated for the planned analyses.…”

“…H orseshoes are frequently modified to enhance traction for horses that travel on paved surfaces for work, pleasure, or entertainment. [1][2][3][4] The types of equids that travel on paved surfaces range from draft horses to ponies, and the use of those animals varies from a basic means of transportation in Amish communities 5 to police service horses 6 and tourist wagon and buggy rides. 3,7 Information is available about the effect of horseshoe modifications such as toe grabs and studs on traction and other gait kinetics for horses used for racing and pulling, but little is known about the kinetic effects of other common horseshoe modifications used to enhance traction, such as calks, tungsten carbide granules, or plastic composites.…”

An Evaluation of Current Preventative Measures Used in Equine Practice to Maintain Distal Forelimb Functionality: A Mini Review

“…However, very few controlled scientific studies have been conducted to rigorously ascertain the therapeutic efficacy of such strategy ( 12 ). Multiple shoeing methods have been conceived, such as z-bar shoes (open area of shoe is intended to reduce weight bearing on the palmar area of the hoof, reducing trauma and promoting healing) ( 13 ), egg bar shoes (increase the weight-bearing surface and create a larger area of posterior support for the foot and leg) ( 14 ), toe wedges and heel wedges (used on the rear palmar aspect of a collapsed heel region of a hoof wall) ( 8 ). These interventions are postulated to promote distal limb health, through supporting the joints of the lower limb and reducing unwanted biomechanical forces applied by the farrier if adverse conformational traits are identified.…”