Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006; 19(04): 205-212
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633002
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Evaluation of a treadmill with integrated force plates for kinetic gait analysis of sound and lame dogs at a trot

N. S. Brebner
1   Departments of Clinical Studies
,
N. M. M. Moens
1   Departments of Clinical Studies
,
J. R. Runciman
2   Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 23 February 2006

Accepted 29 March 2006

Publication Date:
22 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The objective was to compare mean peak vertical force (PVF) obtained with a treadmill with two integrated force plates (TM) with the piezoelectric force platform (FP) for sound and lame dogs at a trot. The aim was also to report the inter-step variability (ISV) for both systems and the effect of lameness on these values. Six sound dogs (20.0–25.5 kg) and six dogs with a grade 2/5 forelimb lameness (17.0–36.1 kg) were used in the study. Dogs were acclimatized and assigned an individual target velocity (1.8–2.2 m/s). Mean PVF measurements were obtained for both TM and FP. Subject velocity was controlled by belt speed on TM and restricted to 0.25 M/s above or below the assigned target velocity for FP. Acceleration was limited to +/- 0.3 M/s2. For the sound dogs, concordance and correlation coefficients of the mean PVF for the front limbs was 0.79 and 0.76, respectively. Concordance and correlation for the rear limbs was 0.90 and 0.81, respectively. For the lame dogs, concordance and correlation for the front limbs was 0.73 and 0.59, respectively. Concordance and correlation for the rear limbs was 0.89 and 0.95, respectively. ISV was 0.94 with TM and 0.84 with FP for the sound dogs and 0.96 with TM and 0.87 with FP for the lame dogs. In conclusion, TM provided rapid PVF measurements, good concordance for the hind limbs, and substantial concordance for the forelimbs in both sound and lame dogs at a trot as compared to FP. Both systems demonstrated excellent ISV for both lame and sound dogs.

Keywords

Treadmill - kinetic - gait analysis - force plate - dog
 

  • References

  • 1 Budsberg SC, Verstraete MC, Souta-Little RW. Force plate analysis of the walking gait in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 1987; 48: 915-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Anderson AM, Mann FA. Force plate analysis: a non-invasive tool for gait evaluation. Comp Vet Cont Edu 1994; 16: 857-65.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bertram JE, Lee DV, Case HN. Comparison of the trotting gaits of Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds. Am JVet Res 2000; 61: 832-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Adriany E, Matis U. Gait analysis in dogs following TPLO: Short term results of a prospective study ESVOT-VOS proceedings abstract. 2002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bertram JE, Lee DV, Todhunter RJ. Multiple force platform analysis of the canine trot: a new approach to assessing basic characteristics of locomotion. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1997; 10: 160-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kennedy S, Lee D, Bertram G. et al. Gait evaluation in hip osteoarthritic and normal dogs using a serial force plate system. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 170-7.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Besancon M, Conzemius M, Derrick T. et al. Comparison ofvertical forces in normal greyhounds between force platform and pressure walkway system. VetCompOrthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 154-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Romans CW, Conzemius MG, Horstman CL. et al. Use of pressure platform gait analysis in cats with and without bilateral onychectomy. Am J Vet Res 2004; 65: 1276-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Waltraud O, Matis U. Ganganalyse beim Hund. Teil 1: Dynamometrische und kinemetrische Meßverfahren und ihre Anwendung bei Tetrapoden. Tierärztl Prax 1997; 25: 8-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Waltraud O, Matis U. Ganganalyse beim Hund. Teil 2: Aufbau eines Ganglabors und bewegungsanalytische Untersuchungen. Tierärztl Prax 1997; 25: 303-11.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 McLauglin RM. Kinetic and kinematic gait analysis in dogs. Vet Clin of North America. Volume 31. No. 1 January 2001
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Budsberg SC, Vertstraete MC, Brown J. et al. Vertical loading rates in clinically normal dogs at a trot. Am JVet Res 1995; 56: 1275-80.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jevens D, Hauptman JG, DeCamp CE. Contributions to variance in force plate analysis of gait in dogs. Am JVet Res 1993; 54: 612-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Riggs CM, DeCamp CE, Soutas-Little RW. Effects of subject velocity on force plate measure ground reaction forces in healthy Greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 1523-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 McLaughlin RM, Roush JK. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal Greyhounds at the trot. Am J VetRes 1994; 55: 1666-71.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Roush J, McLaughlin R. Effects of stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal Greyhounds at the walk. Am J Vet Res 1994; 22: 1672-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rumph PF, Lander JE, Kincaid SA. Ground reaction force profiles from platform gait analysis of clinically normal mesomorphic dogs at the trot. Am JVet Res 1994; 55: 756-61.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McLaughlin R, Roush J. Effects of increasing velocity on braking and propulsion times during force plate gait analysis in Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1995; 56: 139-61.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rumph P, Steiss J, Montgomery R. Effects of selection and habituation on vertical ground reactionforces in Greyhounds. Am JVet Res 1997; S8: 1206-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rumph PF, Steiss JE, West MS. Interday variation in vertical ground reaction force in clinically normal Greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1999; 60: 679-83.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Renberg W, Johnston S, Keying Y. et al. Comparison of stance time and velocity as control variables in force plate analysis of dogs. Am JVet Res 1999; 60: 814-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Budsberg S, Rytz U, Johnston S. Effects of acceleration on ground reaction forces collected in healthy dogs at a trot. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 1S-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yanoff S, Hulse D, Hogan H. et al. Measurements of vertical ground reaction force in jumping dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992; 5: 44-50.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Budsberg S, Jevens D, Brown J. et al. Evaluation of limb symmetry indices, using ground reaction forces inhealthydogs. Am JVetRes 1993; S4: 1569-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 DuLaney D, Puriton P. Dookwah et al. Effect of starting distance on vertical ground reaction forces in the normal dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 183-5.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rumph PF, Kincaid SA, Baird DK. Vertical ground reaction force distribution during experimentally induced acute synovitis in dogs. Am JVet Res 1993; 54: 365-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cross A, Budsberg A, Keefe T. Kinetic gait analysis assessment of meloxicam efficacy inasodium urate-induced synovitis model. Am J Vet Res 1997; 58: 626-31.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Budsberg S. Long term temporal evaluation of ground reaction forces during development of experimentally induced osteoarthritis in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2001; 62: 1207-11.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Moreau M, Dupuis J, Bonneau N. et al. Clinical evaluation of a neutraceutical, carprofen and meloxicam for the treatment of dogs with osteoarthritis. VetRec 2003; 152: 323-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hoelzler M, Millis D, Francis D. et al. Results of arthroscopic versus open arthrotomy for surgical management of cranial cruciate ligament deficiency in dogs. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 146-S3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Marsolais G, Dvorak G, Conzemius M. Effects of postoperative rehabilitation on limb function after cranial cruciate ligament repair in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 220: 1325-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Conzemius M, Evans R, Besancon M. et al. Effect of surgical technique on limb function after surgery for rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 226: 232-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Clements D, Owen M, Carmichael S. et al. Kinematic analysis of 10 Labrador retrievers during treadmill locomotion. Vet Rec 2005; 156: 478-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shwartz P, Millis DL, Hicks DA. et al. A kinematic comparison of over ground vs. treadmill walking in dogs. VOS Abstract 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Owen MR, Richards J, Clements DN. et al. Is canine treadmill kinematic data reliable?. VOS Abstract 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bockstahler BA, Skalicky M, Peham C. et al. Reliability of ground reaction forces measured on a treadmill system in healthy dogs. Vet J. 2005 Nov 29 (epub ahead of print).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kistler information brochure. Gaitway Instrumented treadmill Type. 9810AS10.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989; 45: 255-68.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lin LI. Assay validation using the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 1992; 48: 599-604.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Statistics for Veterinary Science and Animal Science. Petrie A, Watson P. Blackwell Science; 1999. Oxford, UK: pp 170-5.
    Google Scholar
  • 41 White SC, Yack HJ, Tucker CA. et al. Comparison of vertical ground reaction forces during overground and treadmill walking. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 1537-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Buchner HH, Savelberg HH, Schamhardt HC. et al. Kinematics of treadmill versus overground locomotion in horses. Vet Q 1994; Suppl 2 S87-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Nigg DM, De Boer RW, Fisher V. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 98-105.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Nelson RC, Dillman CJ, Lagasse Petal. Biomechanics of overground versus treadmill running. Med Sci Sports 1972; 4: 233-40.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Masanei K, Kouzaki M, Fukunaga T. Variability of ground reaction forces during treadmill walking. J Appl Physiol 2002; 92: 1885-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar