Participate in the 2020 Call for eCourse Proposals >
Cart 0
Latest

Rehabilitation of the Equine Athlete: Evaluating Objective Data

Rehabilitation of the Equine Athlete: Evaluating Objective Data

By Christina Frigast Christina Frigast, MRCVS, CERP, ECP | Updated on | C Frigast, OES Members Only, Rehabilitation

Do you use your Equinosis Q Lameness Locator® for assessing treatment over time? If not, then you are missing out on a great opportunity. The Equinosis Q is invaluable in the work up of subtle or multiple limb lameness. It can make a complex lameness case seem simple and help you resolve it faster and with more confidence. When I first started using the Equinosis Q, which is now more than five years ago, I didn’t imagine the impact the system would have on my approach to lameness and nevertheless the career path I found myself following. As a...

continue reading →


The Importance of Stabilizing the Lameness

The Importance of Stabilizing the Lameness

By Kevin Keegan Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS | Updated on | KG Keegan, OES Members Only, Stabilizing Lameness

Before the availability of body-mounted inertial sensors, I failed to recognize that the clinical sign of lameness was frequently not displayed by the horse clearly (outside of reference ranges) and/or consistently (with low variability) when first examined; that is, when first pulled out of the stall or trailer for examination. Two different observations, coupled with clinical impressions over the years, have caused me now to think that this is actually a common phenomenon. A rough guess is that in about 1 out of 4 cases, the horse fails to display clear or consistent lameness signs. In research projects...

continue reading →


Is Every Horse Lame? What to Consider When Using The Q in Baseline Evaluations

Is Every Horse Lame? What to Consider When Using The Q in Baseline Evaluations

By Kevin Keegan Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS | Updated on | Baseline Evaluation, KG Keegan, OES Members Only

I was recently asked by a practitioner about using the Equinosis Q with Lameness Locator as part of a baseline evaluation on horses with no perceived indications of lameness, but measure as lame. Her concern was that owners would think that every horse tested is lame and in need of further work up. So how should one approach this scenario when obtaining baseline evaluations on horses? Lameness is a clinical sign not a disease. I repeat the mantra many times.    Many horses (I am guessing at least 70%) will measure strong evidence of lameness in at least...

continue reading →


Don't Miss the Boat: Turning Misperceptions into Efficiencies

Don't Miss the Boat: Turning Misperceptions into Efficiencies

By Kevin Keegan Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS | Updated on | Baseline Evaluation, KG Keegan, OES Members Only

  I used to get a little peeved at the interns and residents for ultra-sounding the abdomen before they had me take a horse to colic surgery.  I didn’t think it was necessary.  I was confident that, just by looking at the horse, I knew when it needed to go to surgery.  But I was younger then and ignorant.  In more recent years, after experiencing cases with ultrasound results that were helpful (and in some cases the ultimate diagnostic technique); after witnessing an accumulation of valuable knowledge gleaned from doing something often; after recognizing the efficiency gained from experience...

continue reading →


FAQ: Can Lunging Complicate An Evaluation?

FAQ: Can Lunging Complicate An Evaluation?

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | FAQ, LT Schroeder, Lunging, Lunging Complications

Lunging is a common component of many veterinarians’ lameness evaluations.  With the increased sensitivity of inertial sensors, lameness is often measurable in the straight line even if not visible subjectively. However, lunging can be necessary to lateralize a bilateral lameness, is helpful to stabilize a lameness, and may offer additional insight to the clinical picture, for instance observing whether the lameness is worse on the inside or outside of the circle.  While the established thresholds, or reference ranges, were determined for straight line evaluations only, the Equinosis Q can be used for lunging, yet the veterinarian must be aware of...

continue reading →


Why Lunging Can Complicate An Evaluation: The Effects Of Torso Tilt, Surface, and Lameness

Why Lunging Can Complicate An Evaluation: The Effects Of Torso Tilt, Surface, and Lameness

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | LT Schroeder, Lunging, Lunging Complications, OES Members Only, Surface Determination

Lunging is a common component of many veterinarians’ lameness evaluations.  With the increased sensitivity of inertial sensors, lameness is often measurable in the straight line even if not visible subjectively. However, lunging can be necessary to lateralize a bilateral lameness, is helpful to stabilize a lameness, and may offer additional insight to the clinical picture, for instance observing whether the lameness is worse on the inside or outside of the circle.  While the established thresholds, or reference ranges, were determined for straight line evaluations only, the Equinosis Q can be used for lunging, yet the veterinarian must be aware of...

continue reading →


User Tip: The Consequence of RF Sensor Rotation

User Tip: The Consequence of RF Sensor Rotation

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | LT Schroeder, RF Sensor Guidance, RF Sensor Rotation, Sensor Troubleshooting

The right forelimb sensor includes a gyroscope that measures angular velocity of the distal limb. This signal allows for the determination of when the right forelimb is on the ground versus in swing.  If the sensor rotates off of the dorsal midline, the signal will change, creating problems with the correct determination of right forelimb stance. The ultimate consequence of rotation depends on how much rotation occurs.  If the sensor rotates to the lateral or medial aspect of the limb, then the signal will be reduced, and likely no analysis will be produced.  If an analysis is produced,...

continue reading →


FAQ: Why Are Two Baselines Better Than One?

FAQ: Why Are Two Baselines Better Than One?

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | FAQ, Generating the Analysis, LT Schroeder, Stride Selection

Why is it better to collect two straight line trials of 25 strides than one long trial (of 50+ strides)?  This is a great question and touches on two separate concepts related to variability – stride-by-stride variability and trial-to-trial variability. Stride-By-Stride Variability Stride-by-stride variability = the variability of the lameness measure (Diff Max Head, Diff Min Head, Diff Max Pelvis, Diff Min Pelvis) from stride to stride over the course of a single data collection trial.  Stride-by-stride variability is assessed in the Lameness Locator® report by comparing the standard deviation to the absolute value of the mean, comparing...

continue reading →


10 Common Data Collection Mistakes

10 Common Data Collection Mistakes

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | LT Schroeder, Pelvic Sensor Guidance, RF Sensor Guidance, RF Sensor Rotation

INSTRUMENTATION 1) Putting the RF sensor on upside down. This most commonly occurs when the pastern wrap is applied with the sensor already within the pouch. The user may fail to recognize that the wrap is applied with the sensor pouch upside down. Always check that the RF sensor is positioned correctly, on the dorsal aspect of the pastern, with the label in its proper orientation when viewing straight on, and the LED blinking on the lateral side of the limb (in Gen 3 and newer sensors). An upside-down RF sensor will result in opposite of true results...

continue reading →


FAQ: Will the Q's Data Analysis be Correct if a Sensor is Placed on Backwards?

FAQ: Will the Q's Data Analysis be Correct if a Sensor is Placed on Backwards?

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | Data Interpretation, FAQ, LT Schroeder

I realized my head sensor was accidentally placed backwards after collecting data. Will the analysis be correct? A head or pelvic sensor can be applied backwards and still provide an accurate analysis because the analysis uses the vertical acceleration of the sensor and the sensing element is fitted in the center of the sensor (not off to a side). While recent generation Lameness Locator® sensors have the capability of measuring more than just vertical acceleration, these signals are not necessary for the current analysis for lameness and, therefore, are not utilized outside of research applications.  Using special “Research...

continue reading →


Means & Standard Deviations: An Overview & Practical Application to Lameness Locator® Reports

Means & Standard Deviations: An Overview & Practical Application to Lameness Locator® Reports

By Kevin Keegan Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS | Updated on | Data Interpretation, KG Keegan, Lameness Metrics, Standard Deviations

Even a normal (non-lame) gait has considerable stride by stride variability, that can be further exacerbated by surface characteristics, environmental distractions, horse behavior, and other factors. This makes it necessary to collect and analyze many strides to accurately characterize lameness. To reach an appropriate conclusion and quantification, do not depend on only a few strides. At least 25 strides (more if the horse is misbehaving) should be collected and analyzed for straight line evaluations using the Q with Lameness Locator®. Lameness Locator® measures the Diff Max and Diff Min Head and Diff Max and Diff Min Pelvis for...

continue reading →


Using Inertial Sensors in Research: What to Take into Consideration

Using Inertial Sensors in Research: What to Take into Consideration

By Kevin Keegan Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS | Updated on | KG Keegan, OES Members Only, Reference Range, Research

A Conversation with University of Missouri Professor of Equine Science Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS   WHY USE INERTIAL SENSORS OVER OTHER METHODS OF OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT? DR. KEVIN KEEGAN In my honest opinion, if you are only interested in measuring lameness in horses, for whatever reason, then the only way to do it practically today is with body-mounted inertial sensors. If you are interested in measuring something else, for example rider position on the horse, limb movement effects with shoeing, or if you are interested in developing a method of lameness evaluation that is not based upon...

continue reading →


FAQ: Does the size of the horse matter in using Lameness Locator®?

FAQ: Does the size of the horse matter in using Lameness Locator®?

By Kevin Keegan Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS | Updated on | Horse Size, KG Keegan, Reference Range, Software Navigation

The reported Q thresholds were established in a sample of horses of varying size without standardization due to size. But, 6 mm of asymmetry in pelvic height between right and left hind limb strides in a 1500 lb. Clydesdale is most certainly less indicative of “lameness” than the same (6 mm) in a 200-lb. miniature horse. In 2014, this size-dependent factor was accounted for algorithmically. However, the standardization, instead of being based on size, is based on expected normal vertical movement. After all, it is not really the size of the horse that determines its amplitude of vertical...

continue reading →


FAQ: Why is My Analysis Not Selecting All Strides?

FAQ: Why is My Analysis Not Selecting All Strides?

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | FAQ, Generating the Analysis, LT Schroeder, Software Navigation, Stride Selection

I seem to be collecting a lot of strides, but the analysis is not including them. Why is that? A: Not all strides collected will be analyzed, and this is by design, to help prevent the inclusion of potentially undesirable data. The stride detection algorithm is based on a median stride rate, with a selection that starts around +/-10% of the median stride rate over a collection. This percentage was found to be most effective to include regularly trotting strides and exclude irregular or non-trotting strides. For instance, this is why the user does not have to pause data collection...

continue reading →


Using the Q to Evaluate Lameness Under Saddle

Using the Q to Evaluate Lameness Under Saddle

By Updated on | OES Members Only, Ridden Evaluation

Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS I find it most useful to evaluate for lameness under saddle when 1) no lameness is measurable during standard lameness evaluation, 2) the history obtained from the rider or trainer conflict with what is being measured without a rider, 3) the area for lameness allows this type of evaluation (and in some cases precludes standard evaluation without a rider), and most commonly, 4) when the rider/owner/trainer request it.  Did you know that you can use the Q to evaluate lameness under saddle?  There are two ways to do this.  The first, and most recommended,...

continue reading →


FAQ: Using the Autogenerated Before Flexion Baseline

FAQ: Using the Autogenerated Before Flexion Baseline

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | Baseline Evaluation, FAQ, Flexion/Manipulation, LT Schroeder

Q: I have been using the new automated Before Flexion functionality in LL2017 where you can use your baseline straight evaluation as your baseline before flexion in the comparison report. I have noticed on a few horses that the autogenerated 8 stride baseline looks quite different than the original straight line trial of 25 strides? Why is that?  A: This is likely due to stride to stride variability within the trial. One segment of the data is different than the next segment of data. This could be explained, for instance, by the lameness trotting away in one direction being a...

continue reading →


FAQ: Can I collect flexion test data unassisted?

FAQ: Can I collect flexion test data unassisted?

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | FAQ, Flexion/Manipulation, LT Schroeder

I don’t have an assistant to operate the program for me.  Is there a way that I can collect flexion test data unassisted without having to run back to the computer to select START? A: Yes! Performing a flexion test and then running over to the computer to begin data collection as the horse trots off is certainly not ideal in your lameness evaluation process. But what may not be realized is that if the horse is standing still, this data will not be included in the analysis. Use a nearby table or chair or, while not ideal,...

continue reading →


Utilizing Inertial Sensors in the Pre-Purchase Evaluation

Utilizing Inertial Sensors in the Pre-Purchase Evaluation

By Kevin Keegan Kevin G. Keegan, DVM, MS, DACVS | Updated on | KG Keegan, OES Members Only, Practice Building Tip, Pre-Purchase Exams

Use of inertial sensors in pre-purchase evaluations has been a controversial topic amongst practitioners using the Equinosis Q. Recently we conducted a survey asking for your thoughts and approaches to using the Q in the PPE. 93% of respondents reported to perform at least 2-3 PPEs per month, and just over 37% of respondents perform more than 5 PPEs per month. 80% of respondents reported to perform at least 6 to more than 12 lameness evaluations per week. While we did not receive a large number of responses, approximately 75% of practitioners who did respond have used the Q in a pre-purchase exam,...

continue reading →


Lunging: The 7 Dire Errs to Good Data Collection and Interpretation

Lunging: The 7 Dire Errs to Good Data Collection and Interpretation

By Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder Laurie Tyrrell-Schroeder, DVM | Updated on | LT Schroeder, Lunging, OES Members Only

1) Lunging without conducting a straight-line evaluation Lunging can complicate an otherwise straightforward straight line evaluation. Lameness thresholds have been established for straight line data collections, but not for lunging. Because lunging induces torso tilt, which can affect head and pelvic movement symmetry, and this effect is also surface dependent (Quick Guide to Common Lunge Patterns), lunging interpretation is more complex. Increased variability inherent in lunging can increase the difficulty of evaluation. If the lameness is measurable and consistent (repeatable with 2 contiguous trials) on the straight line, this should be your baseline used to assess change from blocking or...

continue reading →


FAQ: Can the Q be used on a treadmill?

FAQ: Can the Q be used on a treadmill?

By Updated on | Data Collection, FAQ

Yes, much development work was conducted on a treadmill.  It certainly makes collection of stride data very convenient – if one owns a treadmill, but the treadmill creates artificial controlled conditions. Based on some studies at the University of Missouri, it has been shown that the best way to evaluate lameness in the horse is not on the treadmill, but overground.  On the treadmill horses move differently than overground.  Forces on the limbs are different.  On the treadmill you would expect increased horizontal impact on the limbs and a decreased requirement for hind limb propulsion.  The horse simply has to...

continue reading →


FAQ: Why do I get a noisy trial data message when I try to analyze my data?

FAQ: Why do I get a noisy trial data message when I try to analyze my data?

By Equinosis Logo Equinosis Staff | Updated on | Equinosis Staff, FAQ, Noisy Trial Data

If you receive a noisy trial data message following data collection and attempting to generate an analysis, check the following: Make sure that the RF gyroscope sensor is on the dorsal midline of the RF pastern. Placing the sensor on the side of the pastern, or above the fetlock will produce erratic or unusable data. Sensor rotation is prevented by using Elastikon® type tape around the wrap, including some of the hair above the wrap. Check that the RF sensor is stable within the sensor pouch (attached and clicked into the dual lock tape). Place a piece of vetwrap, Elastikon®,...

continue reading →


FAQ: Does pelvic asymmetry matter when using the Equinosis Q?

FAQ: Does pelvic asymmetry matter when using the Equinosis Q?

By Equinosis Logo Equinosis Staff | Updated on | Equinosis Staff, FAQ, Pelvic Sensor Guidance

A commonly asked question by practitioners is if pelvic asymmetry has an effect on hindlimb lameness results; and, if so, how should it be handled. Pelvic asymmetry may have an effect on the Q results if the sensor is significantly tilted. Early recommendations in using the Q on horses with pelvic asymmetry were that the results may falsely indicate or elevate impact type lameness on the high side and push off type lameness on the low side. More recent objective study of this anatomic/conformation abnormality by experimentally wedging the sensor on a 450 angle on anatomically normal horses has shed...

continue reading →


FAQ: How Do I Choose the Correct Surface for Lunging Trials?

FAQ: How Do I Choose the Correct Surface for Lunging Trials?

By Equinosis Logo Equinosis Staff | Updated on | Equinosis Staff, FAQ, Lunging, Surface Determination

When using Equinosis Q for lunging trials, it is important to enter a surface so that the lunging AIDE reflects the proper suggested analysis, which is surface dependent. The options in the surface drop down menu of trial set up are coded as hard or soft.  Hard surfaces include asphalt, concrete, packed dirt, gravel, wood, frozen, and treadmill. Soft surfaces include grass, loose sand, soft/deep, mud, and synthetic. If the surface is not represented, one can choose generic hard or generic soft. Many have asked – “what if I am not sure if it is a hard or soft surface?”...

continue reading →