Reduction of the A-Frame Angle of Incline does not Change the Maximum Carpal Joint Extension Angle in Agility Dogs Entering the A-Frame

Abstract

Objective This article aims to investigate the effect of a decrease in the A-frame angle of incline on the highest carpal extension angle in agility dogs.

Methods Kinematic gait analysis (two-dimensional) measuring carpal extension was performed on 40 dogs entering the A-frame at 3 angles of incline: 40° (standard), 35° and 30°. The highest carpal extension angle from three trials at each incline was examined for a significant effect of A-frame angle with height, body weight and velocity included as covariates.

Results There was no significant effect of A-frame angle on the highest carpal joint extension angle for the first or second limb. The adjusted mean carpal extension angle for the first limb at 40° was 64° [95% confidence interval (CI), 60–68), at 35° was 61° (95% CI, 57–65) and at 30° was 62° (95% CI, 59–65). The raw mean carpal extension angle for all dogs across all A-frame angles for the first limb was 62° (95% CI, 60–64) and the second limb was 61° (95% CI, 59–63).

Clinical Significance Decreasing the A-frame angle of incline from 40° to 30° did not result in reduced carpal extension angles. The failure to find a difference and the narrow CI of the carpal angles may indicate that the physiologic limits of carpal extension were reached at all A-frame angles.

Keywords

kinematics - carpus - agility - dog - canine

Note

Results of this study were presented in part in the Resident Research Competition at the 26th Annual meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons, 13–15 July 2017, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Author Contributions

Conception of study: all authors; Study design: C. Appelgrein, M. R. Glyde, G. Hosgood, A. R. Dempsey; Acquisition of data: all authors; Data analysis and interpretation: C. Appelgrein, M. R. Glyde, G. Hosgood, A. R. Dempsey; Drafting or revising of manuscript: C. Appelgrein, M. R. Glyde, G. Hosgood, A. R. Dempsey; Approval of submitted manuscript: all authors.

• References

• 1 Levy M, Hall C, Trentacosta N, Percival M. A preliminary retrospective survey of injuries occurring in dogs participating in canine agility. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22 (04) 321-324
• 2 Cullen KL, Dickey JP, Bent LR, Thomason JJ, Moëns NM. Internet-based survey of the nature and perceived causes of injury to dogs participating in agility training and competition events. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013; 243 (07) 1010-1018
• 3 Holler PJ, Brazda V, Dal-Bianco B. , et al. Kinematic motion analysis of the joints of the forelimbs and hind limbs of dogs during walking exercise regimens. Am J Vet Res 2010; 71 (07) 734-740
• 4 Gordon-Evans W. Gait analyses. In: Tobias K, Johnston S. , eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. St Louise, Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013: 1190-1196
• 5 Evans HE, de Lahunta A. , eds. Miller's Anatomy of the Dog. 4th ed. St Louise, Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013
• 6 Whitelock R. Conditions of the carpus in the dog. In Pract 2001; 23 (January): 2-13
• 7 Piermattei DL, Flo GL, DeCamp CE. Fractures and other orthopaedic conditions of the carpus, metacarpus, and phalanges. In: Brinker, Piermattei, and Flo's Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. 4th ed. Missouri: Saunders Elsevier; 2006: 382-409
• 8 Jaeger GH, Canapp SO. Carpal and tarsal injuries. Clean Run 2008; 14 (05) 74
• 9 Farrow C. Carpal sprain injury in the dog. Vet Radiol 1977; 18: 38-44
• 10 Rumph PF, Kincaid SA, Visco DM, Baird DK, Kammermann JR, West MS. Redistribution of vertical ground reaction force in dogs with experimentally induced chronic hindlimb lameness. Vet Surg 1995; 24 (05) 384-389
• 11 Eward C, Gillette RL, Eward W. Effects of unilaterally restricted carpal range of motion on kinematic gait analysis of the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 158-163
• 12 DeCamp CE. Kinetic and kinematic gait analysis and the assessment of lameness in the dog. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1997; 27 (04) 825-840
• 13 Gillette RL, Angle TC. Recent developments in canine locomotor analysis: a review. Vet J 2008; 178 (02) 165-176
• 14 Milgram J, Slonim E, Kass PH. , et al. A radiographic study of joint angles in standing dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17 (02) 82-90
• 15 Hottinger HA, DeCamp CE, Olivier NB, Hauptman JG, Soutas-Little RW. Noninvasive kinematic analysis of the walk in healthy large-breed dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57 (03) 381-388
• 16 Nielsen C, Stover SM, Schulz KS, Hubbard M, Hawkins DA. Two-dimensional link-segment model of the forelimb of dogs at a walk. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64 (05) 609-617
• 17 Birch E, Leśniak K. Effect of fence height on joint angles of agility dogs. Vet J 2013; 198 (Suppl. 01) e99-e102
• 18 DeCamp CE, Soutas-Little RW, Hauptman J, Olivier B, Braden T, Walton A. Kinematic gait analysis of the trot in healthy greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54 (04) 627-634
• 19 Agostinho FS, Rahal SC, Miqueleto NS, Verdugo MR, Inamassu LR, El-Warrak AO. Kinematic analysis of Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers trotting on a treadmill. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (03) 185-191
• 20 Bertram JE, Lee DV, Case HN, Todhunter RJ. Comparison of the trotting gaits of Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 2000; 61 (07) 832-838
• 21 Schwencke M, Smolders LA, Bergknut N, Gustås P, Meij BP, Hazewinkel HA. Soft tissue artifact in canine kinematic gait analysis. Vet Surg 2012; 41 (07) 829-837
• 22 Torres BT, Whitlock D, Reynolds LR. , et al. The effect of marker location variability on noninvasive canine stifle kinematics. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (06) 715-719
• 23 van Weeren PR, van den Bogert AJ, Barneveld A. Correction models for skin displacement in equine kinematics gait analysis. J Equine Vet Sci 1992; 12 (03) 178-192
• 24 Tan U. Paw preferences in dogs. Int J Neurosci 1987; 32 (3-4): 825-829