- Journal List
- J Equine Sci
- v.25(1); 2014
- PMC4019201
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
J Equine Sci. 2014; 25(1): 15–22.
Published online 2014 Apr 22. doi:10.1294/jes.25.15
PMCID: PMC4019201
PMID: 24834009
Toshiyuki TAKAHASHI,1,* Kazutaka MUKAI,1 Hajime OHMURA,1 Hiroko AIDA,1 and Atsushi HIRAGA1
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to create a lower forelimb model of the Thoroughbred horse for measuring the force in thesuperficial and deep digital flexor tendons (SDFT and DDFT), and the suspensory ligament (SL) during a trot. The mass, centers ofgravity, and inertial moments in the metacarpus, pastern, and hoof segments were measured in 4 Thoroughbred horses. The momentarms of the SDFT, DDFT, and SL in the metacarpophalangeal (fetlock) and distal interphalangeal (coffin) joints were measured in 7Thoroughbred horses. The relationship between the fetlock joint angle and the force in the SL was assessed in 3 limbs of 2Thoroughbred horses. The forces in the SDFT, DDFT, and SL during a trot were also measured in 7 Thoroughbred horses. The mass ofthe 3 segments, and the moment arms of the SDFT and DDFT in the fetlock joint of the Thoroughbred horses were smaller than thoseof the Warmblood horses, whereas the other values were almost the same in the 2 types. The calculated force in the SDFT with thisThoroughbred model reached a peak (4,615 N) at 39.3% of the stance phase, whereas that in the DDFT reached a peak (5,076 N) at51.2% of the stance phase. The force in the SL reached a peak (11,957 N) at 49.4% of the stance phase. This lower forelimb modelof the Thoroughbred can be applied to studying the effects of different shoe types and change of hoof angle for the flexor tendonand SL forces.
Keywords: segment center of gravity, inertial moment, Thoroughbred, inverse dynamics, tendon
Injuries of the forelimb flexor tendons and ligaments, especially those of the superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT), deep digitalflexor tendon (DDFT), and the suspensory ligament (SL), are a common occurrence in athletic horses [9, 13, 14, 32]. Although the causes of these injuries have not been clearly specified, the overload or repeated loading of the tendonsand the ligaments is assumed to be one of them [7, 8,31]. Therefore, measuring the load in the tendons and the ligaments is useful for theprevention and treatment of these injuries. The forces in the tendons and ligaments have been previously measured by invasive methodssuch as inserting a strain or force sensor into each tendon or ligament [3, 12, 17, 23, 26,27,28,29,30]. However, the problems with this method were lowdurability of the sensors and a low success rate. Moreover, because the sensors are inserted into the tendon or ligament, theinsertion sites are easily damaged and can be used only once, making multiple repetitions of the experiment difficult. Although a newnoninvasive method using ultrasonic transfer speed has been developed recently for measuring these forces [5, 6, 24], it can be used only for theSDFT and not for the DDFT or SL.
In humans, the tendon and ligament forces are measured by using noninvasive inverse dynamics [10], and this is also used in horses during walking, trotting, and jumping [12, 18,19,20]. Itrequires the development of a model from the anatomical data obtained from other horses, the data from a motion analysis system, andthe ground reaction force (GRF). However, the models reported until now have been those of a large horse like a Warmblood or a smallpony [2, 21], both of which are different from theThoroughbred racehorses in body weight (M) and configuration.
The purpose of this study was to create the lower forelimb model of a Thoroughbred and measure the forces in the SDFT, DDFT, and SLduring a trot using this model.
Materials and Methods
Model formulation in the lower forelimb
1. The measurement of the moment arms
The left forelimbs of 7 Thoroughbred horses (5 males, 2 females; mean ± SD: M, 460 ± 22 kg; age, 6.6 ± 2.1years) were obtained from necropsy specimens dissected for reasons other than this experiment. The forelimbs were cut at themiddle of the radius and frozen at –20°C until the measurements were performed.
The frozen limbs were sectioned in the median plane. The photograhps of the metacarpophalangeal (fetlock joint) and the distalinterphalangeal joints (coffin joint) were taken with the reference length and the positions of the center of rotation and themoment arms were measured from photographs using software (ImageJ 1.43u) [1]. The positionsof the center of rotation at the fetlock joint and the coffin joint were determined by fitting the circle to the arc of eachjoint. The moment arm was determined to be the minimum length from the center of the joint to the SDFT, DDFT, or SL. Theresolution was about 130 pixels/cm.
The statistical significance of the regression models between the moment arm and M was set as P<0.05 usingthe Pearson’s correlation coefficient (JMP 9.0.3, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA) .
2. The relationship between the fetlock joint angle and the force in the suspensory ligament
Three forelimbs from 2 male Thoroughbred horses (M, 445 and 515 kg; age, 6 and 8 years) were obtained fromnecropsy specimens dissected for reasons other than this experiment. The forelimbs were cut at the distal part of radius andstored frozen at –20°C until the measurements were performed; they were thawed overnight. During the experiments, the SL wasmaintained in a wet state with saline solution.
The relationship between the fetlock joint angle and SL strain, and the relationship between the SL strain and force weredetermined with the modified method in a previously conducted study [22]. The skin over themetacarpal area, the SDFT, and DDFT were removed. Two markers for the video extensometer were glued on the palmar surface of theSL at a mutual distance of approximately 3 cm. Three markers (1 cm in diameter) were glued on the lateral side of the specimen atthe center of the fetlock and coffin joints, and at the middle between the center of the carpus and fetlock joint, to measure thefetlock joint angle. The hoof was fixed to the horizontal plate connected to the universal testing machine (AG-IS 100kN, SHIMADZUCORPORATION, Kyoto, Japan). The limb was loaded on the radius to 2.0 kN and unloaded to 0.2 kN. The vertical GRF (VGRF) at trotwas reported about 5.0 to 6.0 kN in 400 to 500 kg body weight horses [4,19]. Because SDFT and DDFT that supported the moment of the fetlock joint with SL were removedspecimen, the maximum vertical load was reduced to 2.0 kN. This was repeated 10 times at a head speed of 35 or 70 mm/min. The SLstrain was measured by the video extensometer (DVE-201, SHIMADZU CORPORATION) at a sample frequency of 100 Hz. The fetlock jointangle was measured by the 1-camera high-speed video system (HSV-500C3. nac Image Technology Inc., Tokyo, Japan) at a samplefrequency of 250 Hz. The start time of these systems was synchronized by an electronic flash of LED. The motion data wereresampled at a frequency of 6.25 Hz, because data at one cycle were too many and enough data points were taken at a low samplingrate (about 180 points at one cycle). The fetlock joint angle was determined by the motion analysis system (Movias, nac ImageTechnology Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The data of SL strain that were at the closest time points to those of the fetlock joint angledata were used for analysis. The tenth uploading data were used to determine the angle–SL strain relationship by fitting linearregression equations. The slopes in these equations were averaged to obtain the mean value.
After measuring the relationship between the fetlock joint angle and SL strain, the SL, including the sesamoid bone and thedistal sesamoidean ligament, was removed from the bone without removing the glued markers. SL was clamped in the cryo-jaws [25] for the ligament-loading experiments to determine the strain-force relationship of SL. TheSL was loaded to 4.0 kN and unloaded to 0.3 kN. This cycle was repeated 10 times at a head speed of 100 or 200 mm/min (AG-IS100kN, SHIMADZU CORPORATION). The maximum SL force at trot was reported about 12.0 kN in about 500 kg body weight horses [4, 19]. However, maximum load was set at 4.0 kN, becauseour cryo-jaws could not hold the SL over 4.0 kN without fault. The SL strain and force were measured by the video extensometer(DVE-201, SHIMADZU CORPORATION) and the load cell (AG-IS 100kN, SHIMADZU CORPORATION) at a sample frequency of 100 Hz. The tenthuploading data were used to determine the SL strain–SL force relationship by fitting linear regression equations. The slopes oflinear regression equations were averaged to obtain the mean value. The slope of the fetlock joint angle–SL strain and the SLstrain–SL force relationship were used to calculate the slope of the fetlock joint angle–force relationship.
3. The measurement of the center of gravity and the inertial moment in the metacarpus, pastern, and hoof segments
The left forelimbs of 4 Thoroughbred horses (3 males, 1 female; mean ± SD: M, 447 ± 82 kg; age, 5.3 ± 1.3 years)were obtained from necropsy specimens dissected for reasons other than this experiment. The forelimbs were cut at the distal partof the radius and stored frozen at –20°C until the experiments.
The definition of the lower limb segment was similar to that described by Buchner et al. [2] (Fig. 1). The limb was cut in the middle of the proximal carpal bones, the center of the fetlock and coffin joints. In this model,the proximal interphalangeal joint was assumed to be fixed.
Fig. 1.
Local reference frame in lower forelimb.
The centers of gravity and the inertial moments in the metacarpus, pastern, and hoof segments were measured by the methoddescribed in a previous report [2, 16]. The center ofgravity and inertial moment were expressed relative to a segment-based coordinate system (Fig.1). The origin of this coordinate system was the lateral projection of the center of the proximal joint. In themetacarpus and the pastern segments, the x-axis ran through the lateral projection of the center of the distal joint. In the hoofsegment, the definition of the x-axis was modified. The x-axis was perpendicular to the sole of the hoof. In all segments, thez-axis was perpendicular to the x-axis and pointed medially. The XZ plane contained the medial projection of the center of theproximal joint. The y-axis was perpendicular to the XZ plane and pointed cranially. The x-axis was defined as a reference line.The reference length L was the distance between the lateral projection of the center of the proximal and distaljoints in the metacarpus and the pastern segments. In the hoof segment, it was the height of the projection at the center of thecoffin joint from the hoof sole.
An aluminum fixation (weight, 2.634 kg) was built, and the center of mass and the inertial tensor of the segments were determinedaccording to the method described by Lephart [16]. Oscillation times of box-segment unitswere measured around 6 axes. The time for 20 complete oscillations was determined using a laser displacement meter (LB-01 + LB-60and KZ-U3, response speed 0.7 ms, KEYENCE CORPORATION, Osaka, Japan) and recording software (DI-720 and WinDaq/Pro+, DATAQ, Akron,Ohio, USA) at a sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz to calculate the time for one oscillation. The complete inertial tensor withrespect to the segment’s center of gravity was calculated.
Regression models were used to test the relationships among M, segment mass (m), moment ofinertia, and L. Two different models for m and moments of inertia around the 3 principal segmentaxes (Ixx, Iyy, Izz) were tested as describedin a previously published report [2]. For estimation of m, theM or the L was used. For estimation of the moment of inertia, the product ofm and squared L (mL2) or L were used.Significance level was set at P<0.05. When both models were significant, the model in which the correlation coefficient washigher was selected (JMP 9.0.3).
The measurement of force in the superficial and deep digital flexor tendons, and the suspensory ligament during atrot
These measurements were conducted as part of another experiment [30]. Seven Thoroughbredhorses (3 males, 2 females, and 2 geldings; mean ± SD: M, 520 ± 24 kg; age, 3–7 years) were used. All horses wereconfirmed as not being lame and did not wear shoes for the experiments. One horse participated in 2 experiments using either theleft or the right limb each time. The experiments for the 2 sides were conducted at different times. In the other 6 horses, thedata of 1 experiment with the left or right limb were used to calculate the force in the tendons and the SL. Data were obtained ona total of 8 limbs.
Four markers (1 cm in diameter) were attached to the hoof (lateral at widest hoof width) and the centers of rotation of eachjoint. The positions of the distal interphalangeal (coffin), metacarpophalangeal (fetlock), and carpal joints relative to themarkers were confirmed by radiographs. Kinematic measurements were performed with the use of the 2D motion analysis system withone camera (HSV-500C3, nac Image Technology Inc.), and the GRF was measured by the force plate (DPM-612B and EFP-396ASA21, KyowaElectronic Instruments, Tokyo, Japan). The skin movement artifact was not corrected because the skin displacement in the distalparts of the limb is small. The horses trotted at a comfortable speed (approximately 3 m/s) during the kinematic and GRFmeasurements. All signals and kinematic data were synchronized and recorded at 250 Hz on a data recording system (ADM-686z PCI andLaBDAQ PRO, MICRO SCIENCE, Chiba, Japan).
Tendon and ligament forces were calculated using the method reported previously [18, 22]. However, the mean values of m and the moment of inertia measured in thisstudy for the Thoroughbred were used for the in vitro model of the forelimb (Tables 1 andand 2Table 2). The L in each segment was calculated from the results of the 2D motion analysis, and the centerof mass was calculated from the percentage of L (Table 2). The time when GRF reached 200 N was defined as ground contact, and the force in the SL was assumed to be 0 at thattime. Kinematics was analyzed by software (MOVIAS, resolution was about 5 pixels/cm, nac Image Technology Inc.) and data werefiltered using a low-pass filter (second order, 15 Hz recursive Butterworth filter). The positions and accelerations of thesegments’ center of gravity were calculated from the filtered data and the model developed in this study.
Table 1.
Characteristics and length of moment arms at the fetlock and coffin joints in the 7 Thoroughbred horses
| Horse | Sex | M(kg) | Age(years) | The moment arms (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fetlock joint | Coffin joint | ||||||
| SL | DDFT | SDFT | DDFT | ||||
| A | Female | 451 | 6 | 28.2 | 39.4 | 47.8 | 28.4 |
| B | Male | 475 | 4 | 31.7 | 42.8 | 50.2 | 29.5 |
| C | Male | 488 | 4 | 28.4 | 39.4 | 46.5 | 29.5 |
| D | Male | 451 | 7 | 33.4 | 44.4 | 51.4 | 31.7 |
| E | Female | 444 | 9 | 30.0 | 40.1 | 47.5 | 30.8 |
| F | Male | 482 | 9 | 29.4 | 40.7 | 49.0 | 30.9 |
| G | Male | 429 | 7 | 29.2 | 38.7 | 46.4 | 29.6 |
| Mean | 460 | 6.6 | 30.0 | 40.8 | 48.4 | 30.1 | |
| Standard deviation | 22 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | |
Open in a separate window
Mean moment arms are cited from a previous report [30]. M=bodyweight; SL=suspensory ligament; DDFT=deep digital flexor tendon; SDFT=superficial digital flexor tendon.
Table 2.
Mass (m), reference length (L), center of mass (CoM), moment of inertia(I), and product of inertia (P) for the segments of the Thoroughbred model
| Segment | m(kg) | L(m) | CoMx(%) | CoMy(%) | CoMz(%) | Ixx(kg m2) | Iyy(kg m2) | Izz(kg m2) | Pxy(kg m2) | Pyz(kg m2) | Pxz(kg m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metacarpus | 1.435 | 0.299 | 44.2 | –2.7 | 15.3 | 0.00125 | 0.01448 | 0.01479 | –0.00050 | 0.00028 | –0.00027 |
| (0.300) | (0.019) | (1.2) | (0.9) | (0.5) | (0.0004) | (0.00388) | (0.00414) | (0.00040) | (0.00035) | (0.00026) | |
| Pastern | 0.605 | 0.131 | 47.5 | –6.6 | 26.8 | 0.00043 | 0.00204 | 0.00201 | 0.00044 | –0.00014 | 0.00022 |
| (0.137) | (0.009) | (2.1) | (7.1) | (2.7) | (0.00020) | (0.00073) | (0.00076) | (0.00018) | (0.00072) | (0.00010) | |
| Hoof | 0.704 | 0.066 | 53.9 | 8.1 | 68.5 | 0.00174 | 0.00113 | 0.00091 | 0.00038 | 0.00011 | 0.00033 |
| (0.117) | (0.007) | (2.3) | (10.7) | (14.5) | (0.00057) | (0.00045) | (0.00029) | (0.00043) | (0.00023) | (0.00012) |
Open in a separate window
CoMx, CoMy, and CoMz are the x, y, and z locations of the percentage of segment length ofthe center of mass in the local reference frame.Ixx, Iyy,and Izz is the segment moment of inertia, and Pxx,Pyy, and Pzz is the segment product of inertia aboutthe x-, y-, and z-axes at the segment’s CoM. Data are expressed as mean (standard deviation). m andIzz in 3 segments, and CoMx and CoMy in the metacarpus and pusternsegment are cited from a previous report [30].
With the help of software (BIMUTUS, KISSEI COMTEC CO., LTD., Nagano, Japan), the peak values and times of the VGRF, SDFT, DDFT,and SL were determined. These data were also normalized to 100% stance phase duration and the mean values and standard errors werecalculated using the same software (BIMUTUS).
All procedures were approved by the Equine Research Institute’s Animal Care and Use Committee.
Results
Forelimb model
The M and moment arms are represented in Table 1. There was nocorrelation between M and the moment arms. The mean of the slope of the fetlock joint angle-SL strain, the SLstrain-SL force, and the fetlock joint angle-SL force relationships were 0.202%/degree, 1568.4 N/%, and 311.5 N/degree,respectively [30]. The m, segment length, and theposition of the segment’s center of mass along the 3 segmental axes are represented in Table2. M and m were correlated in all segments. The mL2 and themoment of inertia around the y- and z-axes were also correlated in the metacarpus segment (Table 3).
Table 3.
Significant regression models, correlation coefficient (r), and coefficient of determination (R2)
| Segment | Regression equation | r | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metacarpus | m = 0.003552M – 0.1530 | 0.969 | 0.938 |
| Iyy = 0.08549mL2 + 0.003271 | 0.995 | 0.989 | |
| Izz = 0.09145mL2 + 0.002807 | 0.996 | 0.991 | |
| Pastern | m = 0.001635M – 0.1263 | 0.978 | 0.956 |
| Hoof | m = 0.001411M + 0.0737 | 0.988 | 0.976 |
Open in a separate window
Calculated flexor tendon and suspensory ligament forces
The peak values and times for each force are represented in Table 4. VGRF reached a peak at early middle of the stance phase. The force in the SDFT was approximately 0 during theinitial 5% of the stance phase, and then increased to reach a peak earlier than VGRF (Table4 and Fig. 2). In the final 30% of the stance phase, it assumed a negative value (Fig. 2). Theforce in the DDFT reached a peak at the middle of the stance phase, then decreased and increased slowly to reach a second peak atapproximately 85% of the stance phase (Table 4 and Fig. 2). The force in the SL reached a peak at the middle of the stance phase (Table 4 and Fig. 2).
Table 4.
Maximum force and peak time in the vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), suspensory ligament (SL), superficial digitalflexor tendon (SDFT), and deep digital flexor tendon (DDFT) during a trot
| VGRF | SL | SDFT | DDFT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum force (N) | 5,528 | 11,957 | 4,615 | 5,076 |
| (395) | (1,608) | (1,359) | (1,823) | |
| Peak time (%stance) | 44.7 | 49.4 | 39.3 | 51.2 |
| (3.7) | (3.4) | (4.0) | (5.1) |
Open in a separate window
Data (N=8) are expressed as mean (standard deviation).
Fig. 2.
Calculated mean force of superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT), deep digital flexor tendon (DDFT), and suspensoryligament (SL) during a trot. The thin lines represent values of ± 1 standard error of the mean value.
Discussion
In this study, forces were calculated by applying an in vitro model of the distal portion of the forelimb toinverse dynamic data. These forces are influenced by several sources of errors such as measurement errors in the force plate andmotion analysis system, the inaccuracy in the joint center positions, the interindividual difference of inertial properties, momentarms, and the relationship between force in the SL and the fetlock joint angle. The influence of these error sources has beendiscussed in detail elsewhere [18]. Briefly, a major source of errors is the distance betweenthe application point of GRF and the center of the coffin joint. However, in this study, it was confirmed that the error of theapplication point of GRF was less than 1 cm, and the marker position of the coffin joint was on the center of rotation byradiography. In previous reports on calculation of the forces in these tendons and the SL, the data used were that of a large horselike the Warmblood [22] or a small pony [11]. Becausea Thoroughbred is different from a Warmblood or a pony in M and configuration, the force in the SL-angle of thefetlock joint relationship, inertial properties, and the moment arms might differ. Therefore, a lower limb model of the Thoroughbredwas developed in this study.
The definition of the lower limb segment was similar to that described by Buchner et al. [2] (Fig. 1) to compare the results between Warmblood and Thoroughbred.The proximal interphalangeal joint was also assumed to be fixed. It was reported that the fixation of the proximal interphalangealjoint in the model affected the strains in SDFT, DDFT and SL at a trot [15]. However,thefixation of this joint seemed to have small effects.
Although the Thoroughbred horses used in this study had lesser M than the Warmblood horses, on whom previousreports have been based, the L and the position of the segment’s center of mass along the 3 segmental axes in themetacarpus and pastern segments were of almost the same value [2]. However, them of the metacarpus, pastern, and hoof segments was smaller than that in the Warmblood [2]. Furthermore, because the definitions of the 3 axes and the L of the hoof segment in thisstudy were different from those of previous reports [18], the position of the segment’scenter of the mass and inertial properties were different [2]. The moment arms of the SDFT andDDFT in the fetlock joint were smaller than those in a previous report on larger horses weighing >500 kg [22], whereas the moment arm of the SL in the fetlock joint did not differ. The moment arm of the DDFT in thecoffin joint was different because of the difference in the definition of the center of rotation [22].
The regression analysis revealed significant relationships between the inertial moment in the metacarpus segment andm in all segments. These results were similar to those of a previous report [2]. However, these relationships should be used with appropriate caution because these data were calculated from the dataof only 4 horses. In substitution for the values calculated from the regression formula, the mean values of m andthe moment inertia were used to calculate the forces in the tendons and the SL during the stance phase in this study. However, theinfluence of the errors in m and the inertial properties might not be large because the motion in these segmentsduring the stance phase was not too fast. Furthermore, the moment arm of the tendons and the SL had no correlation withM. Therefore, the mean values of these parameters were used in this study to calculate the forces in the tendonsand SL during the stance phase.
It was reported that the large inaccuracies are caused by errors in the SL model [18]. Thefetlock joint angle–SL force relationship and the definition of zero-angle of the fetlock joint have a large influence on accuracyin this model. It is difficult to correct the angle–force relationship because this error originates from the interindividualvariation in the SL property. However, the variation of the SL force at impact could be reduced by defining the angle of the fetlockjoint at impact as zero. Variation can also be reduced by using the difference of fetlock joint angle at impact to calculate the SLforce.
The angle of the fetlock joint-SL strain, SL strain-SL force, and the angle of the fetlock joint–SL force relationships weredetermined at a slow speed rather than at normal speed during a trot. Although the force or strain at failure changes depending onthe strain rate, the modulus of the tendon and SL is not significantly affected [33, 34]. The strain rate has a small effect on the calculated force in the flexor tendons and SL.
As reported in a previous study [18, 19], the forcein the SDFT and SL peaked around the midstance phase. However, the peak values of the force in the SDFT and SL were lower than thosein the previous reports [18, 19]. The force in theDDFT peaked later, and the peak value was higher than that in the SDFT. These results were different from those of previous reports[18, 19], whereas the peak value was not different.The mean M of the horses used in this experiment was similar to that of the horses used in previous studies,whereas the VGRF in this study (10.6 N/kg) was lower than that in the previous study (12.3 N/kg) [4, 19]. This difference may be related to the lower peak values of the force in theSL and SDFT in this study. However, the difference in the breeds (conformation and kinematics) used in this study and the previousstudy is assumed to have affected the calculated force in the tendons and SL because the peak time and value of the force in theDDFT were also different in this study.
The force in the SDFT in the final 30% assumed a negative value in this study, whereas it was 0 in the final 20% in the previousreport [5, 15, 18]. During this time, the coffin joint is hyperextended, and the navicular ligaments are strained and generate part ofthe net coffin joint moment. The force in the DDFT is therefore overestimated and the force in the SDFT is underestimated [20]. These errors might have an effect on the calculated force in the SDFT. On the other hand,the early disappearance of the SDFT force was in agreement with a previous report, in which the SDFT force was measured by animplanted probe in Thoroughbred horses [30]. This discrepancy may be attributed to thedifferences in conformation, running form, or the in vitro distal forelimb model used.
It was possible to calculate the forces in the SDFT, DDFT, and SL noninvasively during a trot with inverse dynamics and theThoroughbred lower forelimb model reported in this study. It was not possible to evaluate the force in the flexor tendon andsuspensory ligament between individual horses because this forelimb model of the Thoroughbred includes the error frominterindividual variation. However, it can be used for studying the effects of different shoe types and change of hoof angle andequipment on the joint moments by comparing the forces in the flexor tendons and SL in the same horse.
References
1. Abramoff M.D., Magelhaes P.J., Ram S.J.2004. Image processing with ImageJ. BiophotonicsInt. 11: 36–42 [Google Scholar]
2. Buchner H.H., Savelberg H.H., Schamhardt H.C., Barneveld A.1997. Inertial properties of Dutch Warmblood horses. J.Biomech. 30: 653–658 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Butcher M.T., Hermanson J.W., Ducharme N.G., Mitchell L.M., Soderholm L.V., Bertram J.E.2007. Superficial digital flexor tendon lesions in racehorses as a sequela to muscle fatigue: apreliminary study. Equine Vet. J. 39:540–545 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Clayton H.M., Schamhardt H.C., Willemen M.A., Lanovaz J.L., Colborne G.R.2000. Kinematics and ground reaction forces in horses with superficial digital flexortendinitis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 61:191–196 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Crevier-Denoix N., Pourcelot P., Ravary B., Robin D., Falala S., Uzel S., Grison A.C., Valette J.P., Denoix J.M., Chateau H.2009. Influence of track surface on the equine superficial digital flexor tendon loading in two horsesat high speed trot. Equine Vet. J. 41:257–261 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Crevier-Denoix N., Ravary-Plumioën B., Evrard D., Pourcelot P.2009. Reproducibility of a non-invasive ultrasonic technique of tendon force measurement, determinedin vitro in equine superficial digital flexor tendons. J.Biomech. 42: 2210–2213 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Dowling B.A., Dart A.J.2005. Mechanical and functional properties of the equine superficial digital flexortendon. Vet. J. 170: 184–192 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Dowling B.A., Dart A.J., Hodgson D.R., Smith R.K.2000. Superficial digital flexor tendonitis in the horse. Equine Vet.J. 32: 369–378 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Ely E.R., Avella C.S., Price J.S., Smith R.K., Wood J.L., Verheyen K.L.2009. Descriptive epidemiology of fracture, tendon and suspensory ligament injuries in National Huntracehorses in training. Equine Vet. J. 41:372–378 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Farris D.J., Buckeridge E., Trewartha G., McGuigan M.P.2012. The effects of orthotic heel lifts on Achilles tendon force and strain duringrunning. J. Appl. Biomech. 28:511–519 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Jansen M.O., van Buiten A., van den Bogert A.J., Schamhardt H.C.1993. Strain of the musculus interosseus medius and its rami extensorii in the horse, deduced from invivo kinematics. Acta. Anat. (Basel) 147:118–124 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Jansen M.O., van den Bogert A.J., Riemersma D.J., Schamhardt H.C.1993. In vivo tendon forces in the forelimb of ponies at the walk, validated by ground reaction forcemeasurements. Acta. Anat. (Basel) 146:162–167 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Kasashima Y., Takahashi T., Smith R.K.W., Goodship A.E., Kuwano A., Ueno T., Hirano S.2004. Prevalence of superficial digital flexor tendonitis and suspensory desmitis in JapaneseThoroughbred flat racehorses in 1999. Equine Vet. J. 36:346–350 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Lam K.H., Parkin T.D., Riggs C.M., Morgan K.L.2007. Descriptive analysis of retirement of Thoroughbred racehorses due to tendon injuries at the HongKong Jockey Club (1992–2004). Equine Vet. J. 39:143–148 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Lawson S.E., Chateau H., Pourcelot P., Denoix J.M., Crevier-Denoix N.2007. Effect of toe and heel elevation on calculated tendon strains in the horse and the influence ofthe proximal interphalangeal joint. J. Anat. 210:583–591 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Lephart S.A.1984. Measuring the inertial properties of cadaver segments. J.Biomech. 17: 537–543 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Lochner F.K., Milne D.W., Mills E.J., Groom J.J.1980. In vivo and in vitro measurement of tendon strain in the horse.Am. J. Vet. Res. 41: 1929–1937 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Meershoek L.S., Lanovaz J.L.2001. Sensitivity analysis and application to trotting of a noninvasive method to calculate flexortendon forces in the equine forelimb. Am. J. Vet. Res. 62:1594–1598 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Meershoek L.S., Lanovaz J.L., Schamhardt H.C., Clayton H.M.2002. Calculated forelimb flexor tendon forces in horses with experimentally induced superficialdigital flexor tendinitis and the effects of application of heel wedges. Am. J. Vet.Res. 63: 432–437 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Meershoek L.S., Schamhardt H.C., Roepstorff L., Johnston C.2001. Forelimb tendon loading during jump landings and the influence of fence height.Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 33: 6–10 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Meershoek L.S., Van den Bogert A.J.2000. Mechanical analysis of locomotion. pp. 305–326. In: Equine Locomotion. (Back, W., and Clayton,H. eds.). W.B. Saunders, London. [Google Scholar]
22. Meershoek L.S., van den Bogert A.J., Schamhardt H.C.2001. Model formulation and determination of in vitro parameters of a noninvasive method to calculateflexor tendon forces in the equine forelimb. Am. J. Vet.Res. 62: 1585–1593 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Platt D., Wilson A.M., Timbs A., Wright I.M., Goodship A.E.1994. Novel force transducer for the measurement of tendon force in vivo.J. Biomech. 27: 1489–1493 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Pourcelot P., Defontaine M., Ravary B., Lemâtre M., Crevier-Denoix N.2005. A non-invasive method of tendon force measurement. J.Biomech. 38: 2124–2129 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Riemersa D.J., Schamhardt H.C.1982. The cryo-jaw, a clamp designed for in vitro rheology studies of horse digital flexortendons. J. Biomech. 15:619–620 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Riemersma D.J., van den Bogert A.J., Jansen M.O., Schamhardt H.C.1996. Influence of shoeing on ground reaction forces and tendon strains in the forelimbs ofponies. Equine Vet. J. 28:126–132 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Stephens P.R., Nunamaker D.M., Butterweck D.M.1989. Application of a Hall-effect transducer for measurement of tendon strains inhorses. Am. J. Vet. Res. 50:1089–1095 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Takahashi T., Kai M., Hada T., Eto D., Muka K., Ishida N.2002. Biomechanical implications of uphill training on the aetiology of tendinitis.Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 34: 353–358 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Takahashi T., Kasashima Y., Eto D., Mukai K., Hiraga A.2006. Effect of uphill exercise on equine superficial digital flexor tendon forces at trot andcanter. Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 36:435–439 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Takahashi T., Yoshihara E., Mukai K., Ohmura H., Hiraga A.2010. Use of an implantable transducer to measure force in the superficial digital flexor tendon inhorses at walk, trot and canter on a treadmill. Equine Vet. J.Suppl. 42: 496–501 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Thorpe C.T., Clegg P.D., Birch H.L.2010. A review of tendon injury: why is the equine superficial digital flexor tendon most atrisk? Equine Vet. J. 42: 174–180 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Williams R.B., Harkins L.S., Hammond C.J., Wood J.L.2001. Racehorse injuries, clinical problems and fatalities recorded on British racecourses from flatracing and National Hunt racing during 1996, 1997 and 1998. Equine Vet.J. 33: 478–486 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Woo S.L., Peterson R.H., Ohland K.J., Sites T.J., Danto M.I.1990. The effects of strain rate on the properties of the medial collateral ligament in skeletallyimmature and mature rabbits: a biomechanical and histological study. J. Orthop.Res. 8: 712–721 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Yamamoto N., Hayashi K.1998. Mechanical properties of rabbit patellar tendon at high strain rate.Biomed. Mater. Eng. 8: 83–90 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Journal of Equine Science are provided here courtesy of Japanese Society of Equine Science
