Three-dimensional kinematics of the equine metacarpophalangeal joint using x-ray reconstruction of moving morphology – a pilot study

Summary

X-ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM) uses biplanar videoradiography and computed tomography (CT) scanning to capture three-dimensional (3D) bone motion. In XROMM, morphologically accurate 3D bone models derived from CT are animated with motion from videoradiography, yielding a highly accurate and precise reconstruction of skeletal kinematics. We employ this motion analysis technique to characterize metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ) motion in the absence and presence of protective legwear in a healthy pony. Our in vivo marker tracking precision was 0.09 mm for walk and trot, and 0.10 mm during jump down exercises. We report MCPJ maximum extension (walk: –27.70 ± 2.78° [standard deviation]; trot: –33.84 ± 4.94°), abduction/adduction (walk: 0.04 ± 0.24°; trot: –0.23 ± 0.35°) and external/internal rotations (walk: 0.30 ± 0.32°; trot: –0.49 ± 1.05°) indicating that the MCPJ in this pony is a stable hinge joint with negligible extra-sagittal rotations. No substantial change in MCPJ maximum extension angles or vertical ground reaction forces (GRFv) were observed upon application of legwear during jump down exercise. Neoprene boot application yielded –65.20 ± 2.06° extension (GRFv = 11.97 ± 0.67 N/kg) and fleece polo wrap application yielded –64.23 ± 1.68° extension (GRFv = 11.36 ± 1.66 N/kg), when compared to naked control (-66.11 ± 0.96°; GRFv = 12.02 ± 0.53 N/kg). Collectively, this proof of concept study illustrates the benefits and practical limitations of using XROMM to document equine MCPJ kinematics in the presence and absence of legwear.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.3415/VCOT-16-06-0095.

Keywords

Advanced imaging techniques - joint motion - equine athletes - new technologies - motion analysis

• References

• 1 Brainerd EL, Baier DB, Gatesy SM. et al. X-ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM): precision, accuracy and applications in comparative biomechanics research. J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol 2010; 313: 262-279.
• 2 Miranda D, Rainbow M, Brainerd E. et al. Tracking 3D kinematics of healthy and ACL-transected goat knee joints in vivo: a preliminary study. Proceedings of the IEEE 34^th Annual Northeast Bioengineering Conference. Providence, RI, USA: 2008. April 4-6 170-171.
• 3 Gatesy S, Alenghat T. A 3-D computer-animated analysis of pigeon wing movement. Am Zool 1999; 39: 104A-104A.
• 4 Gidmark NJ, Staab KL, Hernandez JP. et al. XROMM analysis of 3D skeletal movement during premaxillary protrusion in common carp. Integrative and Comparative Biology 2009; 49: E62-E62.
• 5 Bey MJ, Kline SK, Zauel R. et al. Measuring dynamic in-vivo glenohumeral joint kinematics: technique and preliminary results. J Biomech 2008; 41: 711-714.
• 6 Tashman S, Anderst W. In-vivo measurement of dynamic joint motion using high speed biplane radiography and CT: application to canine ACL deficiency. J Biomech Eng 2003 1252; 238-245.
• 7 Panagiotopoulou O, Rankin JW, Gatesy SM. et al. A preliminary case study of the effect of shoe-wearing on the biomechanics of a horse’s foot. Peer J 2016; 4: e2164
• 8 Back W, Schamhardt HC, Savelberg HH. et al. How the horse moves: 1. Significance of graphical representations of equine forelimb kinematics. Equine Vet J 1995; 27: 31-38.
• 9 Johnston C, Gottlieb-Vedi M, Drevemo S. et al. The kinematics of loading and fatigue in the standardbred trotter. Equine Vet J Suppl 1999; 30: 249-253.
• 10 Kicker CJ, Peham C, Girtler D. et al. Influence of support boots on fetlock joint angle of the forelimb of the horse at walk and trot. Equine Vet J 2004; 36: 769-771.
• 11 Miro F, Santos R, Garrido-Castro JL. et al. 2D versus 3D in the kinematic analysis of the horse at the trot. Vet Res Commun 2009; 33: 507-513.
• 12 Miranda DL, Rainbow MJ, Leventhal EL. et al. Automatic determination of anatomical coordinate systems for three-dimensional bone models of the isolated human knee. J Biomech 2010; 43: 1623-1626.
• 13 Gonzalez-Ochoa C, McCammon S, Peters J. Computing moments of objects enclosed by piecewise polynomial surfaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 1998; 17: 143-157.
• 14 Hedrick TL. Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems. Bioinspir Biomim 2008; 3: 034001-3182/3/3/034001.
• 15 Grood ES, Suntay WJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng 1983; 105: 136-144.
• 16 Degueurce C, Chateau H, Pasqui-Boutard V. et al. Concrete use of the joint coordinate system for the quantification of articular rotations in the digital joints of the horse. Vet Res 2000; 31: 297-311.
• 17 Hobbs SJ, Richards J, Matuszewski B. et al. Development and evaluation of a noninvasive marker cluster technique to assess three-dimensional kinematics of the distal portion of the forelimb in horses. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 1511-1518.
• 18 Clayton HM, Sha D, Stick J. et al. 3D kinematics of the equine metacarpophalangeal joint at walk and trot. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 86-91.
• 19 Weller R, Pfau T, Babbage D. et al. Reliability of conformational measurements in the horse using a three-dimensional motion analysis system. Equine Vet J 2006; 38: 610-615.
• 20 Chateau H, Degueurce C, Denoix JM. Evaluation of three-dimensional kinematics of the distal portion of the forelimb in horses walking in a straight line. Am J Vet Res 2004; 65: 447-455.
• 21 Clayton HM. The Dynamic Horse: A Biomechanical Guide to Equine Movement and Performance. Mason, MI: Sport Horse Publications 2004
• 22 Back W, Schamhardt HC, Van Weeren PR. et al. A comparison between the trot of pony and horse foals to characterize equine locomotion at young age. Equine Vet J Suppl 1999; 30: 240-244.
• 23 Smith RK, McGuigan MP, Hyde JT. et al. In vitro evaluation of nonrigid support systems for the equine metacarpophalangeal joint. Equine Vet J 2002; 34: 726-731.