EQUINE VETERINARY EDUCATION / AE / FEBRUARY 2022


91


TABLE 3: The final multivariable Poisson regression, including robust standard errors and clustering at venue level, of signalment, work discipline, gait, rider and tack variables associated with Ridden Horse Pain Ethogram scores in a convenience sample of 148 horses


Variable


Breed Cob


Warmblood/Warmblood x Thoroughbred/Thoroughbred x Irish Sports Horse Pony Other


Work discipline General purpose Dressage


Show jumping Eventing


Riding school Racing/Endurance/Western


Lameness status Not lame


Mild lameness Coefficient Robust standard error Incident rate ratio (IRR)


Reference 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.02 0.15


Reference 0.07


0.14 0.12


0.12 0.32


Reference 0.31


Moderate-to-severe lameness 0.87 Rider seat position Middle Back


Saddle tree points too tight No Yes


Noseband type Cavesson


Crank cavesson Crank flash Flash


Grackle Micklem Drop None


Reference 0.08


Reference 0.07


Reference 0.16


0.05 0.13


0.09 0.6


0.06 0.09


P-values < 0.05 are highlighted in bold. CI = confidence intervals.


associated with lameness at trot, highlighting the importance of the assessment of canter in ridden horses.


Saddle fit There was a disturbingly high proportion of saddles (84%) that were considered to fit inadequately, and which may adversely influence performance. This proportion was higher than in two previous UK studies (Greve and Dyson 2014; Dyson and Pollard 2020). In 40% of 506 sports horses, there were abnormalities of saddle fit identified by a veterinarian who had undergone specialised training in saddle fit (Greve and Dyson 2014). Saddle fit was assessed by a Society of Master Saddlers qualified saddle fitter in 60 sports horses, and 47% had ill-fitting saddles that may compromise performance (Dyson and Pollard 2020). However, in a study of 237 Swiss horses, 74% had ill-fitting saddles assessed by experienced veterinarians, with a higher proportion in leisure horses (81%) compared with competition horses (68%) (Dittmann et al. 2020). Adequate room underneath the pommel is a feature that can readily be assessed by a rider (Harman 2004) yet was inadequate in 27% of horses in the current study, clearly reflecting the lack of awareness of a high proportion of riders, despite their willingness to be involved in the study. Better education of riders is obviously required.


Previous smaller studies did not show a significant effect of


an ill-fitting saddle on the RHpE score (Dyson et al. 2020; Dyson and Pollard 2020). However, in the current, larger study tight tree points (seen in 75% of horses) were significantly positively associated with the RHpE score. This highlights the importance of assessing saddle fit in all horses, especially those undergoing investigation for poor performance. We have previously demonstrated the importance of regular saddle-fit assessment and appropriate adjustment for the maintenance of optimal thoracolumbar muscle function and equine performance (Greve et al. 2015; Greve and Dyson 2015a,b).


Rider position In the current study, 57% of riders sat on the back rather than in the middle of the saddle. This may be because the saddle was too small relative either to the rider’s leg length, or to the size of their seat, as observed in 45% of riders. Alternatively, it could be the result of the saddle being the wrong shape for the rider, the stirrup bars being in an inappropriate position, or because the rider had an inherently poor position (Schleese 2014). In a previous pilot study on saddle fit for riders (n = 34), the saddle was too small in 41% (Dyson 2017). Sitting on the back of the saddle will potentially increase forces transmitted


© 2020 EVJ Ltd


0.05 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.08


0.05 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.08


0.09 0.12


0.02 0.02


0.06 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.07


Reference 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2


Reference 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.7


Reference 1.4 2.4


Reference 1.1


Reference 1.1


Reference 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1


IRR 95% CI Wald P-value


1.0, 1.2 1.0, 1.3 1.0, 1.2 0.9, 1.2 1.0, 1.4


0.9, 1.0 0.7, 1.1 1.0, 1.3 1.1, 1.2 0.6, 0.9


1.1, 1.6 1.9, 3.0


1.0, 1.1 0.001 1.0, 1.1


1.0, 1.3 0.8, 1.1 0.7, 1.1 1.0, 1.2 0.8, 1.1 0.9, 1.2 1.0, 1.3


0.006 0.47 0.28 0.06 0.50 0.39 0.21


0.17 0.18 0.02 0.78 0.07


0.13 0.18 0.11


0.001 <0.001 0.001


<0.001 0.001


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