Fig. 3. Right forelimb with only right hindlimb impact CFHL.
hindlimb (25%), or not within the limbs (20%). This is considered a difficult pattern as the pri- mary cause of lameness could just as likely be in the forelimb only, in the hindlimb only, in both the forelimb and hindlimb, or not in the limbs (Fig 4).
5. A horse with CFHL with forelimb lameness and contralateral hindlimb lameness that is both lack of pushoff and lack of impact. This pattern has a moderately high (70.6%) posi- tive diagnostic rate. The primary problem is more likely to be in a forelimb; 78.6% of the cases had a primary cause of lameness in a forelimb (Fig 5).
6. A horse with CFHL with forelimb lameness and contralateral hindlimb lameness that is only lack of pushoff. This pattern has a moder- ately high (69.6%) positive diagnostic rate. The primary problem is most likely to be in a
forelimb; 90.6% of the cases had a primary cause of lameness in a forelimb (Fig 6).
It is preferable to see the prior two patterns (5 and
6). They have a high tomoderately high positive diag- nostic rate, and the good bet is that the primary prob- lemis in the forelimb.
7. A horse with CFHL with forelimb lameness and contralateral hindlimb lameness that is only lack of impact. Even though the majority of these cases had the primary cause of lame- ness in a forelimb (86.1%), this pattern had a low definitive diagnostic rate (54.5%). The only explanation for this is primary forelimb lame- ness with secondary hindlimb lameness, or vice versa. There is no known compensatory pattern that explains this CFHL (Fig 7).
8. Last, a horse with CFHL with forelimb lame- ness, contralateral hindlimb lameness that is
Fig. 4. Right forelimb with right hindlimb pushoff and left hindlimb impact CFHL. AAEP PROCEEDINGS / Vol. 68 / 2022 351