| Literature DB >> 24597771 |
Natasha J Olby1, Ji-Hey Lim, Kellett Babb, Kathleen Bach, Cullen Domaracki, Kim Williams, Emily Griffith, Tonya Harris, Audrey Muguet-Chanoit.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An inexpensive method of generating continuous data on hind limb function in dogs with spinal cord injury is needed to facilitate multicentre clinical trials. This study aimed to define normal fore limb, hind limb coordination in dogs walking on a treadmill and then to determine whether reliable data could be generated on the frequency of hind limb stepping and the frequency of coordinated stepping in dogs with a wide range of severities of thoracolumbar spinal cord injury.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24597771 PMCID: PMC3996037 DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-58
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Figure 1An example of a scoring sheet. A footfall is documented with a line in the appropriate box. Scoring is started with the right fore limb and each block of 4 columns represents one step cycle with two forelimb steps per cycle.
Ordinal scale used to score gait[12]
| 0 | Paraplegic, no nociception. |
| 1 | Paraplegic plus nociception. |
| 2 | Paraplegic with voluntary tail wag. |
| 3 | Minimal non-weight bearing protraction of pelvic limb (movement of 1 joint) |
| 4 | Non-weight bearing protraction of pelvic limb limb with > 1 joint involved < 50% of time. |
| 5 | Non-weight bearing protraction of pelvic limb limb with > 1 joint involved > 50% of time. |
| 6 | Weight bearing protraction of pelvic limb limb < 10% of time. |
| 7 | Weight bearing protraction of pelvic limb limb 10-50% of time. |
| 8 | Weight bearing protraction of pelvic limb limb >50% of time. |
| 9 | Weight bearing protraction 100% of time with reduced strength of pelvic limbs. Mistakes >90% of time (crossing of pelvic limbs, scuffing foot on protraction, standing on dorsum of foot, falling). |
| 10 | Weight bearing protraction 100% of time with reduced strength of pelvic limbs. Mistakes 50-90% of time. |
| 11 | Weight bearing protraction 100% of time with reduced strength of pelvic limbs. Mistakes <50% of time. |
| 12 | Ataxic pelvic limb gait with normal strength but mistakes > 50% of time (lack of coordination with thoracic limb, crossing of pelvic limbs, skipping steps, bunny hopping, scuffing foot on protraction, standing on dorsum of foot). |
| 13 | Ataxic pelvic limb gait with normal strength but mistakes < 50% of time. |
| 14 | Normal pelvic limb gait. |
Stepping scores when scoring the entire videotape, and then the first, middle and last 5, 15 and 25 seconds of videotapes of paraparetic dogs walking on the treadmill
| D1-1 | 77 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 4 |
| D1-2 | 245 | 21 | 18 | 14 | 15 |
| D1-3 | 256 | 28 | 27 | 20 | 12 |
| D1-4 | 140 | 29 | 30 | 24 | 27 |
| D1-5 | 209 | 12 | 12 | 6 | 7 |
| D1-6 | 301 | 29 | 27 | 19 | 26 |
| D1-7 | 122 | 22 | 23 | 17 | 15 |
| D1-8 | 185 | 29 | 31 | 23 | 15 |
| D1-9 | 304 | 38 | 40 | 25 | 20 |
| D2-1 | 95 | 19 | 16 | 9 | 15 |
| D2-2 | 100 | 19 | 23 | 25 | 16 |
| D2-3 | 195 | 11 | 18 | 10 | 3 |
| D2-4 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| D2-5 | 198 | 52 | 56 | 28 | 48 |
| D2-6 | 258 | 30 | 28 | 17 | 15 |
| D2-7 | 228 | 43 | 40 | 32 | 19 |
| D2-8 | 282 | 39 | 38 | 24 | 8 |
| D2-9 | 201 | 34 | 36 | 14 | 8 |
| D2-10 | 113 | 18 | 17 | 7 | 0 |
Comparison of the stepping score generated by scoring the entire video tape versus 75, 45 or 15 seconds of the videotape of dogs walking on a treadmill using paired t tests
| Total vs. 75 seconds | −0.37 | −0.60 | 0.56 |
| Total vs. 45 seconds | 8.74 | 5.54 | <0.001* |
| Total vs. 15 seconds | 11.05 | 5.31 | <0.001* |
*denotes a significant p value.
Figure 2Correlation of the stepping score for the entire videotape of a treadmill session with scoring of 75 (a), 45 (b) and 15 (c) second excerpts of the videotapes. The r2 value for (a) is 0.96, for (b) is 0.733 and for (c) is 0.52.
Scores for paraparetic dogs (values are the mean from all three observers)
| 1 | 5.33 | 0 | 3 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 22 | 18.1 | 4 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 37.33 | 17.97 | 5.33 |
| 6 | 18.33 | 11.2 | 4 |
| 7 | 16 | 0 | 5 |
| 8 | 45.67 | 33.61 | 5 |
| 9 | 44.33 | 24.73 | 5 |
| 10 | 43.67 | 28.37 | 5 |
| 11 | 89.24 | 57.53 | 9 |
| 12 | 66.07 | 5.5 | 9 |
| 13 | 97.73 | 89.83 | 13 |
| 14 | 80.93 | 40.43 | 11 |
| 15 | 46.75 | 47.9 | 7.33 |
| 16 | 69.1 | 29.47 | 8 |
| 17 | 101.33 | 59.13 | 10.33 |
| 18 | 99 | 85.9 | 12.33 |
Dogs 1-10 were non-ambulatory and their treadmill scores were generated with tail support. Dogs 5 and 6 had acute traumatic injuries, while the rest of the dogs had acute intervertebral disc herniations. OFS: open field score [12].
Reliability between three independent observers (interobserver) and one observer scoring three times (intraobserver) using three different scores of hind limb function
| Interobserver: chronic non-ambulatory dogs (n = 10) | 0.992 | 0.991 | 0.997 |
| Interobserver: recovering ambulatory paraparetic dogs (n = 8) | 0.991 | 0.991 | 0.978 |
| Interobserver: whole group (n = 18) | 0.998 | 0.992 | 0.997 |
| Intraobserver: (n = 5) | 0.997 | 0.994 | 1 |
The dogs were considered as a whole group, but also separated into chronic non-ambulatory and recovering ambulatory paraparetic dogs because the quality of the gait of these two groups of dog is quite different.
Correlation between the treadmill based stepping, coordination and open field scores using Pearson’s correlation coefficient
| Chronic non-ambulatory dogs (n = 10) | Stepping | Coordination | 0.9405* | <0.0001 |
| Stepping | Open field | 0.8279* | 0.0031 | |
| Coordination | Open field | 0.6684* | 0.0346 | |
| Recovering ambulatory paraparetic dogs (n=8) | Stepping | Coordination | 0.6692 | 0.0695 |
| Stepping | Open field | 0.8050* | 0.0159 | |
| Coordination | Open field | 0.7069* | 0.0499 | |
| Whole group (n=18) | Stepping | Coordination | 0.8657* | <0.0001 |
| | Stepping | Open field | 0.9504* | <0.0001 |
| Coordination | Open field | 0.8362* | <0.0001 |
All correlations denoted with * are significant.