Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Vet Res ; 80(3): 265-269, 2019 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30801216

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of 3 walkway cover types on temporospatial and ground reaction force measurements of dogs during gait analysis with a pressure-sensitive walkway (PSW). ANIMALS 35 client- and staff-owned dogs (25 nonlame and 10 lame). PROCEDURES In a crossover study design, all dogs were evaluated at a comfortable walk on a PSW to which 3 cover types (a 0.32-cm-thick corrugated vinyl mat or a 0.32- or 0.64-cm-thick polyvinyl chloride yoga mat) were applied in random order. Temporospatial and ground reaction force measurements were obtained and compared among cover types within the nonlame and lame dog groups. RESULTS Several variables, including maximum peak pressure, maximum force (absolute and normalized as a percentage of body weight), and vertical impulse (absolute and normalized) differed significantly in most comparisons among cover types for both nonlame and lame dogs. There was no significant difference in maximum force values between the 0.32-cm-thick corrugated vinyl and 0.64-cm-thick polyvinyl chloride cover types for both nonlame and lame dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE To the authors' knowledge, the cover type used during data collection with a PSW is rarely provided in published reports on this topic. The findings in this study suggested that to ensure that PSW data for dogs are collected in a standardized manner, the same cover type should be used during follow-up visits to evaluate clinical outcomes, for the duration of research studies, and at all locations for multi-institutional studies. The cover type should be specified in future PSW studies to allow direct comparisons of findings between studies.


Subject(s)
Dogs/physiology , Gait Analysis/veterinary , Gait , Animals , Biomechanical Phenomena , Body Weight , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Gait Analysis/instrumentation , Male , Pressure , Walking
2.
J Am Vet Med Assoc ; 249(4): 391-8, 2016 Aug 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27479283

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE To compare owner satisfaction between custom-made stifle joint orthoses and tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) for the management of medium- and large-breed dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease (CCLD). DESIGN Owner survey. SAMPLE 819 and 203 owners of dogs with CCLD that were managed with a custom-made stifle joint orthosis or TPLO, respectively. PROCEDURES Client databases of an orthosis provider and veterinary teaching hospital were reviewed to identify potential survey respondents. An online survey was developed to evaluate owner-reported outcomes, complications, and satisfaction associated with the nonsurgical (orthosis group) and surgical (TPLO group) interventions. Survey responses were compared between groups. RESULTS The response rate was 25% (203/819) and 37% (76/203) for the orthosis and TPLO groups, respectively. The proportion of owners who reported that their dogs had mild or no lameness and rated the intervention as excellent, very good, or good was significantly greater for the TPLO group than for the orthosis group. However, ≥ 85% of respondents in both groups reported that they would choose the selected treatment again. Of 151 respondents from the orthosis group, 70 (46%) reported skin lesions associated with the device, 16 (11%) reported that the dog subsequently underwent surgery, and 10 (7%) reported that the dog never tolerated the device. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated high owner satisfaction rates for both interventions. Owners considering nonsurgical management with an orthosis should be advised about potential complications such as persistent lameness, skin lesions, patient intolerance of the device, and the need for subsequent surgery.


Subject(s)
Anterior Cruciate Ligament/surgery , Dog Diseases/surgery , Osteoarthritis/veterinary , Patient Satisfaction , Animals , Dogs , Female , Humans , Male , Orthotic Devices/veterinary , Osteoarthritis/pathology , Osteoarthritis/surgery , Osteotomy/veterinary , Ownership , Pedigree , Stifle/surgery , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tibia/surgery
3.
Am J Vet Res ; 77(7): 749-55, 2016 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27347828

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE To evaluate accuracy and reliability of 3 novel goniometers for measurement of canine stifle joint angles and compare the results with those obtained with a universal goniometer (UG). SAMPLE 8 pelvic limbs from 4 canine cadavers. PROCEDURES Each limb was secured to a wooden platform at 3 arbitrarily selected fixed stifle joint angles. Goniometry was performed with 2 smartphone-based applications (novel goniometers A and B), a digital goniometer (novel goniometer C), and a UG; 3 evaluators performed measurements in triplicate for each angle with each device. Results were compared with stifle joint angle measurements on radiographs (used as a gold standard). Accuracy was determined by calculation of bias and total error, coefficients of variation were calculated to estimate reliability, and strength of linear association between radiographic and goniometer measurements was assessed by calculation of correlation coefficients. RESULTS Mean coefficient of variation was lowest for the UG (4.88%), followed by novel goniometers B (7.37%), A (7.57%), and C (12.71%). Correlation with radiographic measurements was highest for the UG (r = 0.97), followed by novel goniometers B (0.93), A (0.90), and C (0.78). Constant bias was present for all devices except novel goniometer B. The UG and novel goniometer A had positive constant bias; novel goniometer C had negative constant bias. Total error at 50° and 100° angles was > 5% for all devices. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE None of the devices accurately represented radiographically measured stifle joint angles. Additional veterinary studies are indicated prior to the use of novel goniometers in dogs.


Subject(s)
Arthrometry, Articular/veterinary , Smartphone , Stifle/anatomy & histology , Animals , Arthrometry, Articular/instrumentation , Dogs , Radiography , Reproducibility of Results , Stifle/diagnostic imaging
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL