88
EQUINE VETERINARY EDUCATION / AE / FEBRUARY 2022
TABLE 1 Continued Variable
Saddle bounces dorsoventrally (n = 149) No Yes
Saddle oscillates from side to side (n=149) No Yes
Saddle slips to one side (n = 149) No Yes
Noseband type (n = 151) Cavesson
Crank cavesson Crank flash Flash
Grackle Micklem Drop None
Rider
Rider seat position (n = 150) Middle Back
Rider size in relation to saddle (n = 150) Suitable
Too large
Rider balance (n = 150) In balance
Out of balance
Rider score (n = 150) No abnormalities (0) 1 abnormality (1) 2 abnormalities (2) 3 abnormalities (3)
*Some horses were lame on more than one limb.
The incident rate ratio of RHpE scores for horses with mild lameness was 1.4 times higher (P = 0.001) than for nonlame horses and 2.4 times higher (P < 0.001) for horses with moderate-to-severe lameness than for nonlame horses, which was in keeping with the initial Kruskal–Wallis test findings (Fig 1). Saddles with tree points that were too tight (P = 0.001) and riders seated at the back of the saddle rather than in the middle (P = 0.001) were also associated with higher RHpE scores. Finally, horses wearing crank cavesson nosebands had higher RHpE scores compared with horses wearing correctly fitting cavesson nosebands (P = 0.006). The goodness-of-fit chi-squared test indicated the Poisson model was an adequate fit for the data (goodness-of-fit v2 = 64.3, P = 1.00).
Discussion
Frequency of lameness and comparison of in hand and ridden assessments In the current study, 79% of all horses showed lameness either in hand or ridden, although only 29% were lame in hand, one of which was not assessed ridden because of the severity of lameness and two of which were withdrawn during ridden exercise. The participants were volunteers and, despite including a broad range of work disciplines and rider expertise, the horses and riders were not necessarily
© 2020 EVJ Ltd
representative of the United Kingdom (UK) horse-rider population. Gait in hand and ridden were assessed independently by two observers, without knowledge of each other’s findings. Direct comparison of the frequency of occurrence of
lameness among other studies of riding horses, in work and assumed to be working comfortably, is not straightforward because the circumstances under which horses were examined varied, as did the proportions of different work disciplines and levels of performance. Forty-seven per cent of 506 UK sports horses evaluated in hand and ridden showed lameness, or gait abnormalities in canter consistent with musculoskeletal pain (Greve and Dyson 2014). Fifty-three per cent of 201 Swedish riding horses exhibited measurable asymmetry of gait when trotted in hand (Rhodin et al. 2016). Sixty-four per cent of 57 Danish dressage and showjumping horses showed lameness under one or more circumstances (in hand [26%], on the lunge on soft and/or firm surfaces [44%] or ridden [47%]) (Dyson and Greve 2016). Twenty-two of 33 horses (67%) examined in Canada and Argentina showed lameness in hand (Marqu
es et al. 2014). Of 237 Swiss riding
horses, 54% were lame in hand (Dittmann et al. 2020). Of 60 horses in the UK, which were only evaluated ridden, including 11 riding school horses, 73.3% were lame (Dyson and Pollard 2020). In a study of Swedish riding school horses, evaluated in hand and on the lunge in trot and canter, up to 87% of 99
65 85
82 68
69 81
41 22 50 37
43.3 56.7
54.7 45.3
46.0 54.0
27.3 14.7 33.3 24.7
35.4, 51.3 48.7, 64.6
46.7, 62.6 37.4, 53.3
38.0, 54.0 46.0, 62.0
20.2, 34.5 9.0, 20.3 25.8, 40.9 17.8, 31.6
Number (n)
70 79
63 86
82 67
61 16 21 8
19 12 5 9
Percentage (%)
47.0 53.0
42.3 57.7
55.0 45.0
40.4 10.6 13.9 5.3
12.6 7.9 3.3 6.0
95% Confidence interval (%)
39.0, 55.0 45.0, 61.0
34.3, 50.2 49.8, 65.7
47.0, 63.0 37.0, 53.0
32.6, 48.2 5.7, 15.5 8.4, 19.4 1.7, 8.9 7.3, 17.9 3.6, 12.3 0.5, 6.2 2.2, 9.7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
