Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2017; 30(06): 438-443
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-16-12-0172
Brief Communication
Schattauer GmbH

Effect of Limb Position at the Time of Skin Marker Application on Sagittal Plane Kinematics of the Dog

Sun-Young Kim
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States
,
Bryan T. Torres
2   Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbus, Missouri, United States
,
Gabriella S. Sandberg
3   Department of Small Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States
,
Steven C. Budsberg
3   Department of Small Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 30 December 2016

accepted after revision 13 June 2017

Publication Date:
04 December 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the effect of limb position during initial skin marker application on sagittal plane kinematics of the hindlimb.

Methods Six healthy dogs (20–30 kg) were evaluated. An established two-dimensional kinematic model of the pelvic limb was utilized to describe sagittal plane motion. Kinematic markers were applied separately for each dog while standing in three different positions: (1) the limb extended cranially, (2) a normal standing limb position and (3) the limb extended caudally. Following marker application at each of the three positions, dynamic gait was recorded at a walk (velocity, 0.9–1.2 m/s; acceleration, 0.5m/s2). Five valid trials were used for comparison. Complete waveform analysis was performed with generalized indicator function analysis (GIFA). Maximum and minimum joint angles and joint range of motion were compared with a one-way repeated measures ANOVA with significance at p < 0.05.

Results Significant differences were found between stifle waveforms. No differences were found between the hip or tarsus waveforms. Minimum and maximum joint angles were significantly different for the hip and stifle but not for the tarsus. No differences were found between ranges of motion for any joint evaluated.

Clinical Significance Limb position at the time of skin marker application affects gait data and is an important consideration for kinematic analysis of the hindlimb in dogs.

Keywords

kinematics - dog - variability

All authors were responsible for the study conception and design, as well as the data aquisition, analysis, drafting, and revising the manuscript.


 

  • References

  • 1 Bennett RL, DeCamp CE, Flo GL, Hauptman JG, Stajich M. Kinematic gait analysis in dogs with hip dysplasia. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57 (07) 966-971.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bockstahler BA, Prickler B, Lewy E, Holler PJ, Vobornik A, Peham C. Hind limb kinematics during therapeutic exercises in dogs with osteoarthritis of thehipjoints. Am J Vet Res 2012; 73 (09) 1371-1376.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bush MA, Sibley P, Owen MA, Burton NJ, Owen MR, Colborne GR. Inverse dynamics analysis evaluation of tibial tuberosity advancement for cranial cruciate ligament failure in dogs. Vet Surg 2012; 41 (04) 471-481.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 DeCamp CE, Riggs CM, Olivier NB, Hauptman JG, Hottinger HA, Soutas-Little RW. Kinematic evaluation of gait in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57 (01) 120-126.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Drüen S, Böddeker J, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Fehr M, Nolte I, Wefstaedt P. Computer-based gait analysis of dogs: evaluation of kinetic and kinematic parameters after cemented and cementless total hip replacement. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25 (05) 375-384.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jones SC, Kim SE, Banks SA. et al. Accuracy of noninvasive, single-plane fluoroscopic analysis for measurement of three-dimensional femorotibial joint poses in dogs treated by tibial plateau leveling osteotomy. Am J Vet Res 2014; 75 (05) 486-493.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Korvick DL, Pijanowski GJ, Schaeffer DJ. Three-dimensional kinematics of the intact and cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle of dogs. J Biomech 1994; 27 (01) 77-87.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kim J, Rietdyk S, Breur GJ. Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional systems for kinematic analysis of the sagittal motion of canine hind limbs during walking. Am J Vet Res 2008; 69 (09) 1116-1122.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim SY, Kim JY, Hayashi K, Kapatkin AS. Skin movement during the kinematic analysis of the canine pelvic limb. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (05) 326-332.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Torres BT, Punke JP, Fu YC. et al. Comparison of canine stifle kinematic data collected with three different targeting models. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (04) 504-512.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yokoo T, Knight BW, Sirovich L. An optimization approach to signal extraction from noisy multivariate data. Neuroimage 2001; 14 (06) 1309-1326.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Torres BT, Gilbert PJ, Reynolds LR. et al. The Effect of Examiner Variability on Multiple Canine Stifle Kinematic Gait Collections in a 3-Dimensional Model. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (05) 581-587.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cappozzo A, Catani F, Leardini A, Benedetti MG, Croce UD. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: experimental artefacts. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1996; 11 (02) 90-100.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Leardini A, Chiari L, Della Croce U, Cappozzo A. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait Posture 2005; 21 (02) 212-225.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kim SE, Jones SC, Lewis DD. et al. In-vivo three-dimensional knee kinematics during dailyactivities in dogs. J Orthop Res 2015; 33 (11) 1603-1610.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tashman S, Anderst W, Kolowich P, Havstad S, Arnoczky S. Kinematics of the ACL-deficient canine knee during gait: serial changes over two years. J Orthop Res 2004; 22 (05) 931-941.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Al-Nadaf S, Torres BT, Budsberg SC. Comparison of two methods for analyzing kinetic gait data in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2012; 73 (02) 189-193.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hogy SM, Worley DR, Jarvis SL, Hill AE, Reiser II RF, Haussler KK. Kinematic and kinetic analysis of dogs during trotting after amputation of a pelvic limb. Am J Vet Res 2013; 74 (09) 1164-1171.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jarvis SL, Worley DR, Hogy SM, Hill AE, Haussler KK, Reiser II RF. Kinematic and kinetic analysis of dogs during trotting after amputation of a thoracic limb. Am J Vet Res 2013; 74 (09) 1155-1163.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nordquist B, Fischer J, Kim SY. et al. Effects of trial repetition, limb side, intraday and inter-week variation on vertical and cranio-caudal ground reaction forces in clinically normal Labrador Retrievers. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (06) 435-444.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar