Simple Video-Based Spatiotemporal Gait Analysis Is Not Better than Subjective Visual Assessment of Lameness in Dogs

Abstract

Introduction Visual gait analysis is prone to subjectivity, but objective analysis systems are not widely available to clinicians. Simple video analysis using high-definition recordings might enable identification of temporal or spatial variations that could permit objective and repeatable assessments of lameness in general practice. Methods Cohorts of normal and mildly to moderately lame dogs were filmed using a standardized protocol. Using freely available software, measurements of stance, swing and stride time were obtained, along with measurements of pelvic, shoulder, and head height for each limb. Symmetry ratios were calculated, and distributions of normal and lame dogs compared using Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test. Results Recordings from 35 normal dogs were assessed along with 30 dogs with grade 1 to 3/5 lameness. While no consistent significant differences in temporal characteristics could be found, head height asymmetry was significantly different between lame and normal dogs (p = 0.003), with pairwise comparison showing this difference was restricted to forelimb-lame dogs (p = 0.03). Conclusion While potentially useful for patient records, use of video recordings at walking speeds for simple spatiotemporal gait analysis does not appear to offer clinically significant advantages over visual gait analysis in a typical clinical population of lame dogs.

Modification of Domestic Animal Lameness Scales for Use in Asiatic Black Bears (Ursus thibetanus)

“…Another objective method for assessing lameness is to identify gait asymmetry by measuring kinematic movements, but this method also requires specialist equipment [28]. Scales based solely on visual observation have been successful for describing lameness in horses, dogs, sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), llamas (Lama glama), and beef and dairy cattle regardless of whether or not interrater agreement studies were conducted to support the use of these scales [8,21,25,27,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. Nevertheless, subjective, or visual lameness scores must be repeatable between observers [30].…”