Alterations in thoracolumbosacral movement when pain causing lameness has been improved by diagnostic analgesia

Lameness, thoracolumbosacral pain and reduced range of motion (ROM) often coexist; better understanding of their relationship is needed. The objectives were to determine if thoracolumbosacral movement of horses changes when pain causing lameness is improved by diagnostic analgesia. We hypothesised that reduction of lameness will increase ROM of the thoracolumbosacral region. Thirteen horses with different types of hind limb lameness were trotted in straight lines and lunged on a 10 m diameter circle on left and right reins before and after lameness was subjectively substantially improved by diagnostic analgesia. Inertial sensor data were collected from the withers, thirteenth (T13) and eighteenth thoracic (T18) vertebrae, third lumbar (13) vertebra, tubera sacrale (TS), left and right tubera coxae. ROM of flexion-extension, axial rotation, lateral bending, dorsoventral, lateral-lateral motion and vertical movement symmetry were quantified at each thoracolumbar site. Hiphike difference (HHD), maximum difference (MaxDiff) and minimum difference (MinDiff) for the pelvic sensors were measured. Percentage changes for before and after diagnostic analgesia were calculated; mean standard deviation (SD) or median [interquartile range] were determined. Associations between the change in pelvic versus thoracolumbar movement symmetry after each local analgesic technique were tested. After resolution of lameness, HHD decreased by 7% [68%] (P = 0.006). The MinDiff decreased significantly by 33%[61%] (P = 0.01), 45 +/- 13% (P = 0.005) and 52 +/- 23% (P = 0.04), for TS, L3 and T18, respectively. There was significantly increased ROM in flexion-extension at T13, in axial rotation at T13, T18, 13 and in lateral-lateral ROM at 13. Thoracolumbosacral asymmetry and reduced ROM associated with lameness were both altered immediately by improvement in lameness using diagnostic analgesia. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

The Originalism That Was, and the One That Will Be

The original title for the conference talk on which this brief article is based, hand-picked by the excellent Jack Balkin, was, “What Was Originalism.” While characteristically clever and provocative, the suggestion of originalism’s death captures my position only imperfectly. I believe that originalism—in a broad, generic sense, encompassing any belief that the text is the baseline and that its authors’ expectations count for something—will become more orthodox than ever. And, like many participants at Jack’s wonderful conference, I suspect that his Living Originalism will hasten that trend: already, originalism’s conservative sentinels have predictably attempted to pocket the “originalism” part and to dismiss the “living” elements. However, a certain kind of conservative originalism, or perhaps several positions in originalism’s “logical space,” has or have become unsustainable—partly for theoretical, academic reasons, but in much larger part on account of changes in the broader political context in which originalism operates. Originalism will live, but its dominant forms will have a different tone and orientation