search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
24


EQUINE VETERINARY EDUCATION / AE / JANUARY 2017


TABLE 1: Performance parameters before and after SDFT branch injury in isolation (not associated with a SDFT metacarpal injury) in Standardbred racehorses


SDFT branch injury (n = 15)


Number of starts Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Number of shows Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Number of wins Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Total earnings (€) Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


12 months before


12.2 ± 7.2 (1–22) 12


5.9 ± 4.0 (0–12) 7


1.1 ± 1.2 (0–3) 1


30,796 ± 28,036 (0–87,170) 23,280


12–24 months after


13.2 ± 10.9 (0–29) 16


6.6 ± 6.1 (0–18) 7


1.2 ± 2.1 (0–6) 0


25,864 ± 41,565 (0–134,800) 4445


TABLE 2: Performance parameters before and after injury of the lateral or medial SDFT branch in Standardbred racehorses 12 months before


Lateral SDFT branch injury (n = 12) Number of starts Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Number of shows Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Number of wins Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Total earnings (€) Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Medial SDFT branch injury (n = 3) Number of starts Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Number of shows Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Number of wins Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


Total earnings (€) Mean ± s.d. (range) Median


10.3 ± 6.7 (1–21) 8


4.8 ± 3.6 (0–11) 4.5


0.9 ± 1.1 (0–3) 1


23,168 ± 22,696 (0–68,910) 17,015


20.0 ± 2.0 (18–22) 20


10.3 ± 1.5 (9–12) 10


2.0 ± 1.7 (0–3) 3


61,310 ± 30,388(27,840–87,170) 68,920


12–24 months after


13.3 ± 11.8 (0–29) 13.5


6.5 ± 6.5 (0–18) 7


1.3 ± 2.3 (0–6) 0


28,498 ± 45,960 (0–13,4800) 4402.5


12.7 ± 7.6 (4–18) 16


7.0 ± 5.0 (2–12) 7


0.7 ± 1.2 (0–2) 0


15,330 ± 16,358 (590–32,930) 12,470


In our study, 93% of Standardbred racehorses returned to


racing. This compares favourably with what was previously reported in Thoroughbred racehorses (70%) (Gibson et al. 1997) and it supports our initial hypothesis. The reinjury rate was, however, 22% in Standardbred racehorses, which is slightly higher than in Thoroughbreds (10%) for the same type of lesions (Gibson et al. 1997). This difference may reflect the more ‘uncontrolled’ rehabilitation strategy used in our study. Some horses may also have been returned to exercise too quickly due to the time and economical pressure well recognised in the Standardbred racing industry. Racecourse designs, racetrack surfaces, maximum racing speed and gait differences are likely to account for such differences between Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds (Bertuglia et al. 2014). The biomechanics of ‘flying trot’ and the slower speed compared to high-speed gallop seems to reduce the likelihood of bone


© 2015 EVJ Ltd


failure accidents. The limited vertical oscillation of the centre of mass during trot generates a reduced impact on the front legs during the stance phase of the stride (Biewener 1998). The much lower rate of reinjury for SDFT branch lesions


compared with mid-metacarpal lesions (Godwin et al. 2012) is of utmost importance, even though a methodical comparison between studies remains difficult. A recurrence rate of 53% has been reported for conservative management of metacarpal injury (Dyson 2004). As previously explained, cross-sectional area and blood supply could account for the lower recurrence rate (Stromberg 1971; Riemersma and Schamhardt 1985; Kraus-Hansen et al. 1992). It was suggested that horses with SDFT injuries in the pastern


may have a poorer prognosis for return to racing than those with injuries in the metacarpal region, with a more frequent recurrence of injury (Reimer 1997). The conclusions from our


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