Cadaver Studies Using Mechanical Presses
A recent Post portraying a cadaver limb in a mechanical press and undergoing the loading cycle of the stance phase purported to illustrate differences in physiology of the hoof in differential hoof management scenario.
Caution should be exercised when coming to conclusions as to value of such demonstrations in an uncontrolled environment.
Critical Evaluation of Cadaver Studies vs. Live Horse Studies on Equine Hoof Function
Research on the role of the frog in the equine hoof during the stance phase has employed various methodologies, including the use of cadavers in mechanical presses, in-shoe or mat pressure sensors, and force plate analysis. Each approach has strengths and limitations, which impact the interpretation of results.
Cadaver Studies Using Mechanical Presses
Cadaver studies have been extensively used to simulate the forces experienced by the hoof during the stance phase. In these studies, the hoof is typically mounted on a mechanical press, which applies controlled loads to mimic the pressures that would occur during live locomotion.
Advantages:
Control Over Variables: Cadaver studies allow for precise control over experimental conditions, such as the amount of load, the direction of force application, and the specific areas of the hoof being studied. This level of control is challenging to achieve in live animals.
Detailed Structural Analysis: Since cadavers can be dissected post-experiment, researchers can conduct detailed examinations of internal hoof structures, such as the frog, digital cushion, and coffin bone, which are not as accessible in live studies.
Limitations:
Lack of Physiological Response: One significant limitation is the absence of physiological responses such as blood flow, muscle tension, and natural hoof expansion. In live horses, the hoof undergoes dynamic changes due to vascular and muscular activity, which cannot be replicated in cadavers.
Static Nature of Study: Cadaver studies are static, meaning they do not account for the dynamic aspects of gait, such as acceleration, deceleration, or uneven terrain. This limits the applicability of findings to real-world conditions.
For example, a study by Thomason et al. (2001) used cadaver hooves to investigate the effects of load on the internal structures of the hoof. While the study provided valuable insights into the mechanical behavior of the frog and digital cushion under load, it did not account for the dynamic, physiological responses that occur in live horses, such as the natural expansion and contraction of the hoof with each stride.
In-Shoe and Mat Pressure Sensors
In-shoe and mat pressure sensors are used in live studies to measure the distribution of forces across the hoof as the horse moves. These studies can capture data in real-time as the horse performs various gaits on different surfaces.
Advantages:
Dynamic Data Collection: Unlike cadaver studies, in-shoe and mat pressure sensors can capture the dynamic interplay of forces as the horse moves. This provides a more accurate representation of how the hoof functions during actual locomotion.
Live Physiological Interaction: These sensors measure the hoof’s interaction with the ground in real-time, reflecting the natural movement, blood flow, and hoof wall expansion. This allows for an assessment of how the frog contributes to shock absorption and force distribution during movement.
Limitations:
Complexity and Variability: Live studies introduce a higher level of complexity due to the variability in individual horse gaits, hoof shapes, and surface conditions. This variability can make it difficult to isolate specific factors or draw generalizable conclusions.
Potential for Inaccuracies: Sensor placement within the shoe or on mats can sometimes lead to inaccuracies if the sensors shift or do not fully capture the pressures exerted on all parts of the hoof, especially under high-speed or uneven conditions.
For example, a study by Oosterlinck et al. (2013) used pressure sensors to analyze the hoof-ground interaction in barefoot and shod horses. This study provided critical insights into the dynamic pressure distribution under the hoof and highlighted the frog’s role in load distribution during different gaits. The live data offered a more comprehensive understanding of hoof mechanics, though the complexity of real-life conditions added variability to the results.
Force Plate Analysis
Force plate analysis involves having the horse walk or trot over a plate embedded in the ground that measures the forces exerted by the hoof with each step.
Advantages:
High Precision: Force plates provide highly accurate measurements of the ground reaction forces, which can be used to analyze the overall biomechanics of the hoof during locomotion.
Comprehensive Data Collection: Force plates can capture data on multiple parameters, such as vertical forces, braking and propulsion forces, and mediolateral balance, providing a detailed overview of the forces acting on the hoof.
Limitations:
Limited Surface Interaction: Force plate studies typically occur on flat, uniform surfaces, which do not fully replicate the variety of terrains a horse might encounter. This limitation means the findings might not be entirely representative of natural conditions.
Restrictive Environment: The requirement for horses to step accurately onto the force plate can restrict the range of gaits and movements that can be studied, potentially leading to less natural behavior and gait patterns during the experiment.
A study by Eliashar et al. (2004) used force plate analysis to compare the ground reaction forces in shod and barefoot horses. The study showed significant differences in how forces were distributed across the hoof, with barefoot horses showing greater frog engagement during the stance phase. The force plate provided precise data, but the controlled conditions limited the applicability to real-world scenarios.
Comparison and Synthesis
When comparing findings from cadaver studies to those using live horse data (pressure sensors and force plates), several critical differences emerge:
Physiological vs. Mechanical Responses:
Cadaver Studies: Provide insights into the mechanical properties of the hoof and its structures, such as the frog, under load. However, they fail to account for physiological responses that are crucial for understanding the true function of the hoof during movement.
Live Horse Studies: Offer a more accurate representation of how the hoof functions under real-world conditions, capturing dynamic responses that cadaver studies cannot. These include the natural expansion of the hoof capsule and the role of the frog in shock absorption during actual locomotion.
Dynamic vs. Static Analysis:
Cadaver Studies: Are inherently static, which limits their applicability to understanding the dynamic behavior of the hoof during different phases of gait.
Pressure Sensors and Force Plates: Capture the dynamic forces acting on the hoof, providing a better understanding of how the frog contributes to hoof function during live movement.
Control vs. Complexity:
Cadaver Studies: Offer a high level of control over experimental conditions, allowing researchers to isolate specific variables. However, this control comes at the cost of losing the complexity of live movement and physiological responses.
Live Studies: Introduce variability that can make data interpretation more challenging, but they more accurately reflect the conditions under which the hoof normally operates.
Conclusion
While cadaver studies are valuable for understanding the mechanical properties of the equine hoof, they are limited in their ability to represent the dynamic, physiological aspects of hoof function during the stance phase. In contrast, live studies using pressure sensors and force plates provide a more holistic view, capturing the complex interactions between the hoof and the ground during locomotion. However, the inherent variability in live studies can introduce challenges in data interpretation. Therefore, the most comprehensive understanding of the frog’s role in hoof mechanics likely comes from integrating findings from both cadaver studies and live horse research, each contributing unique insights to the overall picture.
References
Thomason, J. J., Douglas, J. E., Sears, W. C., & Hogan, H. A. (2001). Mechanical properties of the equine hoof wall: Do they help the horse resist injuries to the hoof capsule? Journal of Biomechanics, 34(11), 1531-1539.
Oosterlinck, M., Hardeman, L. C., van der Meij, B. R., Veraa, S., van der Kolk, J. H., & Back, W. (2013). Pressure plate analysis of toe-heel and medio-lateral hoof balance at the walk and trot in sound sport horses. The Veterinary Journal, 198(1), e18-e23. Eliashar, E., McGuigan, M. P., Wilson, A. M., & Silverman, B. W. (2004). A comparison of the forces acting on the navicular bone of a horse in a standing position and at the trot. Journal of Biomechanics, 37(12), 1739-1747.
#hoofflix #equinepodiatry #inspired #equinetherapy #hoofcare #farrier #equinevet #equine #barefoottrimmer
Watch related video below:
Biomechanics of the equine foot mechanism Narrated by Neil Madden FWCF
