Gait Analysis of Amputee Dogs Using a Pressure-Sensitive Walkway

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to perform gait analysis using a pressure-sensitive walkway in dogs submitted to high (total) or low amputation (partial) of one forelimb or hindlimb.

Study Design A total of 39 dogs met the inclusion criteria. The reasons for the amputations were motor vehicle accidents in 38 dogs and possible limb malformation in 1 dog. The amputee dogs were divided into four groups: G1 (n = 10)—high forelimb; G2 (n = 10)—low forelimb; G3 (n = 9)—high hindlimb; and G4 (n = 10)—low hindlimb. For kinetic evaluation, the dogs were walked across a pressure-sensitive walkway.

Results In dogs with forelimb amputation, the percentage of body weight (%BW) distribution on the contralateral forelimb was 50.7% in cases of high amputation and 55.5% in cases of low amputation, while the %BW distribution on the hindlimbs, mainly in the ipsilateral hindlimb, was 27.9% in cases of high amputation and 27.1% in cases of low amputation. In cases of high amputation of the hindlimb, the %BW distribution was 71.5% on the forelimbs and 29.7% on the contralateral hindlimb, while in cases of low amputation, the distribution was mainly for the contralateral hindlimb and ipsilateral forelimb. No statistical difference was noted between the amputation levels, except for the contralateral limb in cases of low and high amputation of the hindlimbs concerning the overload percentage and %BW distribution.

Conclusion The amputation level of one forelimb did not influence the %BW distribution; however, in the hindlimb, this was higher for the contralateral limb in dogs submitted to high amputation.

Keywords

limb - walking - kinetic analysis - trauma - amputation

Authors' Contribution

T.G.F., S.C.R., W.T.K., L.R.M., M.J.M., J.P.S., and F.S.A. contributed to conception of the study, study design, and acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. All the authors participated in the drafting and revision of the manuscript and approved the submitted manuscript.

Publication History

Received: 20 September 2023

Accepted: 11 January 2024

Article published online:
19 March 2024

• References

• 1 Kirpensteijn J, van den Bos R, Endenburg N. Adaptation of dogs to the amputation of a limb and their owners' satisfaction with the procedure. Vet Rec 1999; 144 (05) 115-118
• 2 Shaver SL, Culp WTN. Tumors of bone and joint. In: Bruyette DS. ed. Clinical Small Animal Internal Medicine. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2020: 1327-1332
• 3 Adamson C, Kaufmann M, Levine D, Millis DL, Marcellin-Little DJ. Assistive devices, orthotics, and prosthetics. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005; 35 (06) 1441-1451 , ix
• 4 Séguin B. Amputations. In: Johnston SA, Tobias KM. eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed.. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders; 2018: 3257-3293
• 5 Daly WR. Amputation of the forelimb. In: Bojrab MJ, Waldron D, Toombs JP. eds. Current Techniques in Small Animal Surgery. Jackson, WY: Teton Newmedia; 2014: 972-976
• 6 Motta T, Hill L. Forelimb, hindlimb, and digit amputation. In: Polak K, Kommedal AT. eds. Field Manual for Small Animal Medicine. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2018: 237-248
• 7 Wendland TM, Seguin B, Duerr FM. Prospective evaluation of canine partial limb amputation with socket prostheses. Vet Med Sci 2023; 9 (04) 1521-1533
• 8 Wustefeld-Janssens BG, Séguin B, Ehrhart NP, Worley DR. Analysis of outcome in dogs that undergo secondary amputation as an end-point for managing complications related to limb salvage surgery for treatment of appendicular osteosarcoma. Vet Comp Oncol 2020; 18 (01) 84-91
• 9 Kirpensteijn J, van den Bos R, van den Brom WE, Hazewinkel HA. Ground reaction force analysis of large breed dogs when walking after the amputation of a limb. Vet Rec 2000; 146 (06) 155-159
• 10 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
• 11 Cole GL, Millis D. The effect of limb amputation on standing weight distribution in the remaining three limbs in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2017; 30 (01) 59-61
• 12 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
• 13 Galindo-Zamora V, von Babo V, Eberle N, Betz D, Nolte I, Wefstaedt P. Kinetic, kinematic, magnetic resonance and owner evaluation of dogs before and after the amputation of a hind limb. BMC Vet Res 2016; 12 (20) 20
• 14 Besancon MF, Conzemius MG, Derrick TR, Ritter MJ. Comparison of vertical forces in normal greyhounds between force platform and pressure walkway measurement systems. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16 (03) 153-157
• 15 Lascelles BD, Roe SC, Smith E. et al. Evaluation of a pressure walkway system for measurement of vertical limb forces in clinically normal dogs. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67 (02) 277-282
• 16 Torres BT. Gait analysis. In: Johnston SA, Tobias KM. eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed.. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders; 2018: 3742-3776
• 17 Kano WT, Rahal SC, Agostinho FS. et al. Kinetic and temporospatial gait parameters in a heterogeneous group of dogs. BMC Vet Res 2016; 12 (01) 2
• 18 Torres BT. Objective gait analysis. In: Duerr F. ed. Canine Lameness. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2020: 15-30
• 19 Davidson JR, Kerwin S. Physical therapy for specific diagnoses. In: Millis DL, Levine D, Taylor RA. eds. Canine Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2014: 543-581
• 20 Fuchs A, Goldner B, Nolte I, Schilling N. Ground reaction force adaptations to tripedal locomotion in dogs. Vet J 2014; 201 (03) 307-315