Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:48:45.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synthetic shoes attenuate hoof impact in the trotting warmblood horse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Willem Back ,
Maaike HM van Schie  and
Jessica N Pol
Willem Back*
Affiliation:
Department of Equine Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 114, NL-3584 CM, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Maaike HM van Schie
Affiliation:
Department of Equine Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 114, NL-3584 CM, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jessica N Pol
Affiliation:
Department of Equine Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 114, NL-3584 CM, Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author: W.Back@vet.uu.nl
Get access

Abstract

Impact is considered the most critical part of the stance phase for the development of chronic articular disorders such as osteoarthritis in the equine distal limb. Modern, synthetic shoeing materials are believed to modify impact and therefore are often used to treat an/r prevent lameness due to chronic joint disorders. Scientific evidence is scarce, however, to prove this. Hoof impact of forelimb was compared quantitatively in a group of horses under three conditions: unshod, classical steel shoes and shod with a synthetic shoe. Twelve sound warmblood horses were trotted by hand on an asphalt track at a mean speed of 3.5ms−1 and measured in a Latin square design (unshod condition, with steel shoes and with polyurethane (PU) shoes) using a triaxial accelerometer that had been fixed to the lateral hoof wall of the left forelimb. The sampling frequency was set at 10kHz per channel. The maximum amplitude of vertical and horizontal, forwar/ackward accelerations at hoof impact was lowest when shod using the PU shoeing condition (P<0.05), but the duration of the impact vibrations was lowest when unshod. PU shoes cause more damping, less friction and slower shock absorption at hoof level compared with the other two conditions and thus modify impact. Synthetic, polyurethane shoes may help in reducing peak vibrations. These short-term effects appear to be promising enough to evaluate PU shoes under field conditions in reducing impact on the longer term after substantial wear and tear. Furthermore, the possible role of synthetic materials in repairing critical tissues or even in preventing osteoarthritis in horses warrants further investigation.

Keywords

equinelocomotioninitial ground contactshoeingacceleration
Type
Research Article
Information
Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 143 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1McIlwraith, CW (1996). General pathobiology of the joint and response to injury. In: McIlwraith, CW & Trotter, GW(eds), Joint Diseases in the Horse (pp. 40–43). Philadelphia, USA: W.B. Saunders Co.Google Scholar
2Back, W (2001). Hoof and shoeing. In: Back, W, Clayton, HM(eds), Equine Locomotion (pp. 135–166). London: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
3Pratt, GW (1997). Model for injury to the foreleg of the Thoroughbred racehorse. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 23: 30–32.Google Scholar
4Radin, EL, Paul, IL and Rose, RM (1972). Role of mechanical factors in pathogenesis of primary osteoarthritis. Lancet iii(4): 519–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Radin, EL, Yang, KH, Riegger, C, Kish, VL and O'Connor, JJ (1991). Relationship between lower limb dynamics and knee joint pain. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 9: 398–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Simon, SR, Radin, EL, Paul, IL and Rose, RM (1972). The response of joints to impact loading. II: In vivo behaviour of subchondral bone. Journal of Biomechanics 5: 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Radin, EL, Martin, RB, Burr, DB, Caterson, B, Boyd, RD and Goodwin, C (1984). Effects of biomechanical loading on the tissues of the rabbit knee. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2: 231–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Radin, EL, Parker, HG, Pugh, JW, Steinberg, RS, Paul, IL and Rose, RM (1973). Response of joints to impact loading. III: Relationship between trabecular microfractures and cartilage degeneration. Journal of Biomechanics 6: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Serink, MT, Nachemson, A and Hansson, G (1977). The effect of impact loading on rabbit knee joints. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 48: 250–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Dekel, S and Weissman, SL (1978). Joint changes after overuse and peak overloading of rabbit knees in vivo. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 49: 519–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Radin, EL (1999). Subchondral changes and cartilage damage. Equine Veterinary Journal 31: 94–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Dyhre-Poulsen, P, Smedegaard, HH, Roed, J and Korsgaard, E (1994). Equine hoof function investigated by pressure transducers inside the hoof and accelerometers mounted on the first phalanx. Equine Veterinary Journal 26: 362–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Gustås, P, Johnston, C, Roepstorff, L and Drevemo, S (2001). In vivo transmission of impact shock waves in the distal forelimb of the horse. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 33: 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Lanovaz, JL, Clayton, HM and Watson, LG (1998). In vitro attenuation of impact shock in equine digits. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 26: 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Willemen, MA, Jacobs, MWH and Schamhardt, HC (1999). In vitro transmission and attenuation of impact vibrations in the distal forelimb. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 30: 245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Wilson, AM, McGuigan, MP, Su, A and van den Bogert, AJ (2001a). Horses damp the spring in their step. Nature 414: 895–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Barrey, E, Landjerit, B and Wolter, R (1991). Shock and vibration during the hoof impact on different track surfaces. In: Persson, SG, Lindholm, A, Jeffcott, LB(eds), Equine Exercise Physiology (pp. 97–106). Davis, California: ICEEP Publications.Google Scholar
18Marks, D, Mackay-Smith, MP, Cushing, LS and Leslie, JA (1971). Use of an elastomer to reduce concussion to horses’ feet. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 158: 1361–1365.Google ScholarPubMed
19Vasko, KA and Farr, D (1984). A visco-elastic polymer as an aid in injury management and prevention in equine athletes. Equine Veterinary Science 4: 278–280.Google Scholar
20Benoit, P, Barrey, E, Regnault, JC and Brochet, JL (1993). Comparison of the damping effect of different shoeing by the measurement of hoof acceleration. Acta Anatomica 146: 109–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Burn, JF, Wilson, A and Nason, GP (1997). Impact during equine locomotion: Techniques for measurement and analysis. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 23: 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Van Heel, MCV, Barneveld, A, van Weeren, PR and Back, W (2004). Dynamic pressure measurements for the detailed study of hoof balance: The effect of trimming. Equine Veterinary Journal 36: 778–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Nigg, BM (2002). The role of impact forces and foot pronation: a new paradigm. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 12: 57–59.Google Scholar
24Hjerten, G and Drevemo, S (1994). Semi-quantitative analysis of hoof-strike in the horse. Journal of Biomechanics 27: 997–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Back, W, Schamhardt, HC, Hartman, W and Barneveld, A (1995). Kinematic differences between the distal portions of the forelimbs and hindlimbs of horses at the trot. American Journal of Veterinary Research 56: 1522–1528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Johnston, C, Roepstorff, L and Drevemo, S (1995). Kinematics of the distal forelimb during stance phase in the fast trotting standardbred. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 18: 170–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Dow, SM, Leendertz, JA, Silver, IA and Goodship, AE (1991). Identification of subclinical tendon injury from ground reaction force analysis. Equine Veterinary Journal 23: 266–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Folman, Y, Wosk, J, Voloshin, A and Liberty, S (1986). Cyclic impacts on heel strike: a possible biomechanical factor in the etiology of degenerative disease of the human locomotor system. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 104: 363–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Schamhardt, HC and Merkens, HW (1994). Objective determination of ground contact of the limbs of the horse at the walk and trot: comparison between ground reaction forces, accelerometer data, and kinematics. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 17: 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Wilson, AM, McGuigan, MP, Fouracre, L and MacMahon, L (2001b). The force and contact stress on the navicular bone during trot locomotion in sound horses and horses with navicular disease. Equine Veterinary Journal 33: 334–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed