A randomised, double-blinded, placebocontrolled clinical study on intra-articular hyaluronan treatment in equine lameness originating from the metacarpophalangeal joint

Background: Intra-articular inflammation resulting in lameness is a common health problem in horses. Exogenous intra-articular hyaluronic acid has been shown to provide an analgesic effect and reduce pain in equine and human osteoarthritis. High molecular weight non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) has gained popularity in the treatment of human arthritic conditions due to its long-acting pain-relieving effects. The aim of this study was to compare the response to treatment of lameness localized in the equine metacarpophalangeal joint injected with non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) and placebo (saline). Twenty-seven clinically lame horses with a positive response to diagnostic intra-articular anaesthesia of the metacarpophalangeal joint and with no, or at most mild, radiographic changes in this joint were included in the study. Horses in the treatment group (n = 14) received 3 mL of a NASHA product intra-articularly, and those in the placebo group (n = 13) received an equivalent volume of sterile 0.9 % saline solution. Results: The change in the lameness score did not significantly differ between NASHA and placebo groups (P = 0.94). Scores in the flexion test improved more in the NASHA group compared with placebo (P = 0.01). The changes in effusion and pain in flexion were similar (P = 0.94 and P = 0.27, respectively) when NASHA and placebo groups were compared. A telephone interview follow-up of the owners three months post-treatment revealed that 14 of the 21 horses (67 %) were able to perform at their previous level of exercise. Conclusions: In the present study, a single IA NASHA injection was not better than a single saline injection for reducing lameness in horses with synovitis or mild osteoarthritis. However, the results of this study indicate that IA NASHA may have some beneficial effects in modifying mild clinical signs but more research is needed to evaluate whether the positive effect documented ie. reduced response in the flexion test is a true treatment effect.Peer reviewe

Part II of Finnish Agility Dog Survey: Agility-Related Injuries and Risk Factors for Injury in Competition-Level Agility Dogs

Dog agility is associated with a risk for sport-related injuries, but few risk factors for injury are known. A retrospective online questionnaire was used to collect data on 864 Finnish competition-level agility dogs—including 119 dogs (14%) with agility-related injury during 2019. Data included injury details, health background, experience in agility, and sport and management routines prior to the injury. Risk factors for injury were evaluated with multivariate logistic regression. The rate of competition-related injuries was 1.44 injuries/1000 competition runs. The front limb was injured in 61% of dogs. In 65% of dogs, the injury presented as lameness. The main risk factors for agility-related injury during 2019 were multiple previous agility-related injuries (OR 11.36; 95% CI 6.10–21.13), older age when starting course-like training (OR 2.04 per one year increase; 95% CI 1.36–3.05), high training frequency, diagnosis of lumbosacral transitional vertebra, and physiotherapy every two to three months compared with never. The most important protective factors were moderate competition frequency and A-frame performance technique. These associations do not confirm causality. We identified new risk factors for injury in agility. This information can be used to improve the welfare of agility dogs

Part I of Finnish Agility Dog Survey: Training and Management of Competition-Level Agility Dogs

Knowledge regarding training, competition, and management routines of agility dogs is lacking. Through a retrospective online questionnaire, Finnish owners and handlers of 745 competition-level agility dogs provided information on training routines and management of these dogs during one year free of agility-related injuries. Competition routines were collected from the national competition results database. Most dogs trained agility 1–2 times a week, with a median active training time of 18 min a week. Dogs competed in a median of 2.1 runs per month at a speed of 4.3 m/s. Common field surfaces were different types of artificial turfs and dirt surface. Warm-up and cool-down were established routines, and 62% of dogs received regular musculoskeletal care. Moreover, 77% of dogs underwent conditioning exercises, but their frequency was often low. Additionally, dogs were walked for a median of 1.5 h daily. Pearson’s chi-squared and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to evaluate the association between a dog’s competition level and training and competition variables. A dog’s competition level was associated with competition (p < 0.001) and training frequency (p < 0.001); dogs at higher levels compete more but train less than dogs at lower levels. This study provides information on training, competition, and management routines of competing agility dogs

Part II of Finnish Agility Dog Survey : Agility-Related Injuries and Risk Factors for Injury in Competition-Level Agility Dogs

Dog agility is associated with a risk for sport-related injuries, but few risk factors for injury are known. A retrospective online questionnaire was used to collect data on 864 Finnish competition-level agility dogs&mdash;including 119 dogs (14%) with agility-related injury during 2019. Data included injury details, health background, experience in agility, and sport and management routines prior to the injury. Risk factors for injury were evaluated with multivariate logistic regression. The rate of competition-related injuries was 1.44 injuries/1000 competition runs. The front limb was injured in 61% of dogs. In 65% of dogs, the injury presented as lameness. The main risk factors for agility-related injury during 2019 were multiple previous agility-related injuries (OR 11.36; 95% CI 6.10&ndash;21.13), older age when starting course-like training (OR 2.04 per one year increase; 95% CI 1.36&ndash;3.05), high training frequency, diagnosis of lumbosacral transitional vertebra, and physiotherapy every two to three months compared with never. The most important protective factors were moderate competition frequency and A-frame performance technique. These associations do not confirm causality. We identified new risk factors for injury in agility. This information can be used to improve the welfare of agility dogs

Part I of Finnish Agility Dog Survey: Training and Management of Competition-Level Agility Dogs

Knowledge regarding training, competition, and management routines of agility dogs is lacking. Through a retrospective online questionnaire, Finnish owners and handlers of 745 competition-level agility dogs provided information on training routines and management of these dogs during one year free of agility-related injuries. Competition routines were collected from the national competition results database. Most dogs trained agility 1–2 times a week, with a median active training time of 18 min a week. Dogs competed in a median of 2.1 runs per month at a speed of 4.3 m/s. Common field surfaces were different types of artificial turfs and dirt surface. Warm-up and cool-down were established routines, and 62% of dogs received regular musculoskeletal care. Moreover, 77% of dogs underwent conditioning exercises, but their frequency was often low. Additionally, dogs were walked for a median of 1.5 h daily. Pearson’s chi-squared and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to evaluate the association between a dog’s competition level and training and competition variables. A dog’s competition level was associated with competition (p < 0.001) and training frequency (p < 0.001); dogs at higher levels compete more but train less than dogs at lower levels. This study provides information on training, competition, and management routines of competing agility dogs

Ranking of physiotherapeutic evaluation methods as outcome measures of stifle functionality in dogs

BACKGROUND: Various physiotherapeutic evaluation methods are used to assess the functionality of dogs with stifle problems. Neither validity nor sensitivity of these methods has been investigated. This study aimed to determine the most valid and sensitive physiotherapeutic evaluation methods for assessing functional capacity in hind limbs of dogs with stifle problems and to serve as a basis for developing an indexed test for these dogs. A group of 43 dogs with unilateral surgically treated cranial cruciate ligament deficiency and osteoarthritic findings was used to test different physiotherapeutic evaluation methods. Twenty-one healthy dogs served as the control group and were used to determine normal variation in static weight bearing and range of motion. The protocol consisted of 14 different evaluation methods: visual evaluation of lameness, visual evaluation of diagonal movement, visual evaluation of functional active range of motion and difference in thrust of hind limbs via functional tests (sit-to-move and lie-to-move), movement in stairs, evaluation of hind limb muscle atrophy, manual evaluation of hind limb static weight bearing, quantitative measurement of static weight bearing of hind limbs with bathroom scales, and passive range of motion of hind limb stifle (flexion and extension) and tarsal (flexion and extension) joints using a universal goniometer. The results were compared with those from an orthopaedic examination, force plate analysis, radiographic evaluation, and a conclusive assessment. Congruity of the methods was assessed with a combination of three statistical approaches (Fisher’s exact test and two differently calculated proportions of agreeing observations), and the components were ranked from best to worst. Sensitivities of all of the physiotherapeutic evaluation methods against each standard were calculated. RESULTS: Evaluation of asymmetry in a sitting and lying position, assessment of muscle atrophy, manual and measured static weight bearing, and measurement of stifle passive range of motion were the most valid and sensitive physiotherapeutic evaluation methods. CONCLUSIONS: Ranking of the various physiotherapeutic evaluation methods was accomplished. Several of these methods can be considered valid and sensitive when examining the functionality of dogs with stifle problems

Muscle fibre type distribution of the thoracolumbar and hindlimb regions of horses: relating fibre type and functional role

Peer reviewe

Developing a testing battery for measuring dogs' stifle functionality : the Finnish Canine Stifle Index (FCSI)

This study aimed at developing a quantitative testing battery for dogs' stifle functionality, as, unlike in human medicine, currently none is available in the veterinary field. Forty-three dogs with surgically treated unilateral cranial cruciate ligament rupture and 21 dogs with no known musculoskeletal problems were included. Eight previously studied tests: compensation in sitting and lying positions, symmetry of thrust in hindlimbs when rising from lying and sitting, static weight bearing, stifle flexion and extension and muscle mass symmetry, were summed into the Finnish Canine Stifle Index (FCSI). Sensitivities and specificities of the dichotomised FCSI score were calculated against orthopaedic examination, radiological and force platform analysis and a conclusive assessment (combination of previous). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)was used to evaluate FCSI score differences between the groups. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was calculated. The range of the index score was 0-263, with a proposed cut-off value of 60 between 'adequate' and 'compromised' functional performance. In comparison to the conclusive assessment, the sensitivity and specificity of the FCSI were 90 per cent and 90.5 per cent, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for internal reliability of the FCSI score was 0.727. An estimate of the surgically treated and control dogs' FCSI scores were 105 (95 per cent CI 93 to 116) and 20 (95 per cent CI 4 to 37), respectively. The difference between the groups was significant (PPeer reviewe