Kinetic Gait Analysis of Agility Dogs Entering the A-FrameFunding Funding, in part, was provided by the Canine Research Fund of the Australian National Kennel Council and the College of Veterinary Medicine, Murdoch University.
11 May 2018
19 November 2018
31 January 2019 (eFirst)
Objective The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a decrease in the A-frame angle of incline on the vertical and cranio-caudal ground reaction forces observed in a homogeneous cohort of agility dogs during entrance and contact with the A-frame.
Materials and Methods A crossover study design was applied to eight large breed dogs to compare the vertical and cranio-caudal ground reaction forces entering the A-frame at three angles of incline: 40° (standard), 35° and 30°. The peak vertical force, passive impact peak, peak propulsive force, peak braking force, the time point (percentile) in the stance phase at which these events occurred and the proportion of time for limb contact spent in braking (% braking) and propulsion (% propulsion) were examined.
The variables measured from three trials at each incline were evaluated for a significant effect of A-frame angle with height and velocity included as covariates.
Results The peak propulsive force and the % propulsion were significantly higher at the 40° angle of incline compared with 30° (p = 0.013, p = 0.0165 respectively) and the % braking was significantly lower at the 40° angle of incline compared with 30° (p = 0.0165). There was no significant effect of A-frame angle on the vertical ground reaction forces measured.
Clinical Significance Compared with 30° incline, ascent up the A-frame at a 40° incline requires a higher propulsive force and extended time in propulsion to maintain forward movement and convert potential energy into forward kinetic energy.
This study was presented at the Veterinary Orthopaedic Society (VOS) held at Snowbird, Utah from March 11-18, 2017.
Carla Appelgrein, Mark R. Glyde, Giselle Hosgood and Alasdair R. Dempsey contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. All of them also drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript. Sarah Wickham contributed to acquisition of data and approved the submitted manuscript.
- 1 Levy M, Hall C, Trentacosta N, Percival M. A preliminary retrospective survey of injuries occurring in dogs participating in canine agility. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22 (04) 321-324
- 2 Cullen KL, Dickey JP, Bent LR, Thomason JJ, Moëns NM. Internet-based survey of the nature and perceived causes of injury to dogs participating in agility training and competition events. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013; 243 (07) 1010-1018
- 3 Appelgrein C, Glyde MR, Hosgood G, Dempsey AR, Wickham S. Reduction of the A-Frame angle of incline does not change the maximum carpal joint extension angle in agility dogs entering the A-frame. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018; 31 (02) 77-82
- 4 Cullen KL, Dickey JP, Brown SH. , et al. The magnitude of muscular activation of four canine forelimb muscles in dogs performing two agility-specific tasks. BMC Vet Res 2017; 13 (01) 68
- 5 DeCamp CE. Kinetic and kinematic gait analysis and the assessment of lameness in the dog. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1997; 27 (04) 825-840
- 6 Budsberg SC, Verstraete MC, Soutas-Little RW. Force plate analysis of the walking gait in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 1987; 48 (06) 915-918
- 7 Carrier DR, Gregersen CS, Silverton NA. Dynamic gearing in running dogs. J Exp Biol 1998; 201 (Pt 23): 3185-3195
- 8 Pfau T, Garland de Rivaz A, Brighton S, Weller R. Kinetics of jump landing in agility dogs. Vet J 2011; 190 (02) 278-283
- 9 Yanoff SR, Hulse DA, Hogan HA, Slater MR, Longnecker MT. Measurements of vertical ground reaction force in jumping dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992; 5: 44-50
- 10 Australian national kennel council rules for the conduct of agility trials, Available at: http://ankc.org.au/media/4369/agilityrules-2016.pdf Accessed September 10, 2017
- 11 Lee DV. Effects of grade and mass distribution on the mechanics of trotting in dogs. J Exp Biol 2011; 214 (Pt 3): 402-411
- 12 Walter RM, Carrier DR. Ground forces applied by galloping dogs. J Exp Biol 2007; 210 (Pt 2): 208-216
- 13 McLaughlin Jr RM, Roush JK. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55 (12) 1666-1671
- 14 Verdini F, Marcucci M, Benedetti MG, Leo T. Identification and characterisation of heel strike transient. Gait Posture 2006; 24 (01) 77-84
- 15 Gillespie KA, Dickey JP. Determination of the effectiveness of materials in attenuating high frequency shock during gait using filterbank analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2003; 18 (01) 50-59
- 16 Jevens DJ, Hauptman JG, DeCamp CE, Budsberg SC, Soutas-Little RW. Contributions to variance in force-plate analysis of gait in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54 (04) 612-615
- 17 Riggs CM, DeCamp CE, Soutas-Little RW, Braden TD, Richter MA. Effects of subject velocity on force plate-measured ground reaction forces in healthy greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54 (09) 1523-1526
- 18 Voss K, Galeandro L, Wiestner T, Haessig M, Montavon PM. Relationships of body weight, body size, subject velocity, and vertical ground reaction forces in trotting dogs. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (07) 863-869
- 19 Voss K, Wiestner T, Galeandro L, Hässig M, Montavon PM. Effect of dog breed and body conformation on vertical ground reaction forces, impulses, and stance times. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (02) 106-112
- 20 Krotscheck U, Todhunter RJ, Nelson SA, Sutter NB, Mohammed HO. Precision and accuracy of ground reaction force normalization in a heterogeneous population of dogs. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (04) 437-445
- 21 Mölsä SH, Hielm-Björkman AK, Laitinen-Vapaavuori OM. Force platform analysis in clinically healthy Rottweilers: comparison with Labrador Retrievers. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (06) 701-707
- 22 Hans EC, Zwarthoed B, Seliski J, Nemke B, Muir P. Variance associated with subject velocity and trial repetition during force platform gait analysis in a heterogeneous population of clinically normal dogs. Vet J 2014; 202 (03) 498-502
- 23 Punke JP, Speas AL, Reynolds LR, Andrews CM, Budsberg SC. Measurement differences between three versus five photocells during collection of ground reaction forces in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20 (02) 98-101
- 24 DeCamp CE, Soutas-Little RW, Hauptman J, Olivier B, Braden T, Walton A. Kinematic gait analysis of the trot in healthy greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54 (04) 627-634
- 25 Schwencke M, Smolders LA, Bergknut N, Gustås P, Meij BP, Hazewinkel HA. Soft tissue artifact in canine kinematic gait analysis. Vet Surg 2012; 41 (07) 829-837