92


EQUINE VETERINARY EDUCATION / AE / FEBRUARY 2022


Not lame


Mild lameness


Moderate to severe lameness


Fig 1: Median Ridden Horse Pain Ethogram scores (0–24) of 148 horses compared with lameness status, assessed both in hand and ridden. Mild lameness ≤ 2/8; moderate or severe lameness ≥ 3/8 (Dyson 2011). Boxes represent medians and interquartile ranges, whiskers represent the range and individual points are outliers.


through the caudal half of the saddle (Roost et al. 2020), an effect which could be potentially compounded if the rider is out of balance (54% of riders in the current study), the saddle seat tips backwards (21% of saddles in the current study), or if the saddle moves excessively during ridden exercise (dorsoventral 53%, side to side 58%, saddle slip 45%, in the current study). However, we did not assess left-right asymmetry of the rider in the current study, which can also have a major impact on force distribution under the saddle (Gunst et al. 2019). Despite this limitation, the importance of rider position and the horse’s performance is highlighted by the positive relationship between the rider being on the back of the saddle and the RHpE score.


The RHpE score and musculoskeletal pain We have previously demonstrated that a RHpE score ≥ 8/24 is highly likely to reflect the presence of musculoskeletal pain, although some lame horses score < 8/24 (Dyson et al. 2018a, b, 2020; Dyson and Van Dijk 2020; Dyson and Pollard, 2020), as seen in the current study. Moreover, there was a positive relationship between lameness severity and the RHpE score. Fifty-six horses (37.8%) had a RHpE score < 8, of which 33 (58.9%) were nonlame. The gait assessment in the current study was limited to subjective evaluation, but included assessment of variations in canter, which cannot currently be assessed objectively. Twenty-two horses had a symmetrical gait in trot and a


RHpE score ≥ 8, of which 16 (72.7%) showed gait abnormalities in canter. Gait abnormalities in canter were significantly associated with the RHpE score in the univariable analysis, but not in the final model, as in a previous study (Dyson and Pollard, 2020). However, 5/22 horses (22.7%) (H1- 5) had, based on the definitions, both a symmetrical gait and normal canter, but a RHpE score ≥ 8. It is also necessary to consider gait abnormalities not included in the definitions which may reflect discomfort (e.g. a short-stepping gait), rider


© 2020 EVJ Ltd


size relative to the saddle, their position in the saddle and balance, and saddle fit for the horse, and their effect on performance and behaviour, bearing in mind that both tight tree points and the rider sitting on the back of the saddle had a significant positive association with the RHpE score. The rider of H1 sat on the back of the saddle, was too large for the saddle and was not in balance; the tree points were tight, and the saddle oscillated. The rider of H2 sat on the back of the saddle was too large for the saddle and was not in balance. The rider of H3 was not in balance; the horse had a short-stepping gait; the seat of the saddle tipped forwards and the saddle bridged and oscillated. Horse 4 was reluctant to canter; the tree points were tight, there was dorsoventral bounce of saddle, which oscillated and slipped to one side. The rider of H5 sat on the back of the saddle and was not in balance; the horse exhibited poor hindlimb impulsion; the tree points were tight, the pommel was too low, and the saddle oscillated and slipped to one side. These five horses illustrate the need to evaluate the horse, saddle, rider combination when considering reasons for equine poor performance.


Nosebands


The use of nosebands which by their design and/or tight fitting have the potential to restrict mouth movement, or predispose to oral lesions, is a controversial issue (Fenner et al. 2016; Doherty et al. 2017; McGreevy et al. 2017; Uldahl and Clayton 2019). In the current study, noseband fit was not quantified, but all horses were observed closely during tacking up, as part of a related study, with subjective assessment of tightness. Noseband fit was evaluated by one observer; it was possible to insert two fingers between the cavesson nosebands and the nasal bones. All the nosebands with the potential to limit mouth opening were fitted snugly; it would not have been possible to insert the purpose-designed taper gauge (ISES 2012; Doherty et al. 2017), or a single finger


0


Ridden Horse Pain Ethogram score 5


10


15


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