| Literature DB >> 29296594 |
Erika Fernanda V Garcia1, Catherine A Loughin1, Dominic J Marino1, Joseph Sackman1, Scott E Umbaugh2, Jiyuan Fu2, Samrut Subedi2, Martin L Lesser3, Meredith Akerman3, João Eduardo W Schossler4.
Abstract
Subtle lameness makes it difficult to ascertain which is the affected limb. A study was conducted to investigate a change in the thermal pattern and temperature of the thermal image of the paw print in a lame pelvic limb compared to a non-lame pelvic limb of dogs confirmed by orthostatic analysis. Fourteen client owned dogs with a unilateral pelvic limb lameness and 14 healthy employee dogs were examined and the pelvic limbs radiographed. Thermal images of the paw print were taken after each dog was kept in a static position on a foam mat for 30 seconds. Average temperatures and thermographic patterns were analyzed. Analysis was performed in a static position. The asymmetry index for each stance variable and optimal cutoff point for the peak vertical force and thermal image temperatures were calculated. Image pattern analysis revealed 88% success in differentiating the lame group, and 100% in identifying the same thermal pattern in the healthy group. The mean of the peak vertical force revealed a 10.0% difference between the left and right pelvic limb in healthy dogs and a 72.4% between the lame and non-lame limb in the lame dog group. Asymmetry index analysis revealed 5% in the healthy group and 36.2% in the lame group. The optimal cutoff point for the peak vertical force to determine lameness was 41.77% (AUC = 0.93) and for MII 0.943% (AUC = 0.72). The results of this study highlight the change in the thermal pattern of the paw print in the lame pelvic limb compared to a non-lame pelvic limb in the lame group and the healthy group. Medical infrared imaging of the paw prints can be utilized to screen for the lame limb in dogs.Entities:
Keywords: Cruciate; Infrared imaging; Lameness; Orthostatic analysis
Year: 2017 PMID: 29296594 PMCID: PMC5738888 DOI: 10.4314/ovj.v7i4.10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Vet J ISSN: 2218-6050
Lameness grade at a walk and trot.
| Grade | Description |
|---|---|
| 0 (None) | No lameness is observed at a walk or trot |
| 1 (Mild) | Lameness is present, but may only be consistently apparent at a trot |
| 2 (Mild to moderate) | Mild lameness is obviously present at a walk and is worse at a trot |
| 3 (Moderate) | Obvious lameness is present at both gaits |
| 4 (Moderate to severe) | Obvious lameness is present at both gaits and may be intermittently non-weight bearing |
| 5 (Severe) | Lameness is non-weight bearing most or all of the time |
Average, ± SD, minimum and maximum of temperatures (ºC) of the paw print obtained in healthy (left and right pelvic limb) and lame dogs (lame limb and non-lame pelvic limb).
| Dog | Limb | Mean ± SD | Avg min | Avg max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | Left limb | 21.67 ± 1.3 | 20.5 | 22.8 |
| Dogs | Right limb | 21.82 ± 1.3 | 20.7 | 23.1 |
| Lame | Lame limb | 21.08 ± 1.2 | 20.5 | 21.7 |
| Dogs | Non-lame limb | 21.61 ± 1.2 | 20.6 | 23.0 |
Fig. 1(A): Thermal image of the paw print in a dog with grade 2 lameness (black arrow). (B): Thermal image of the paw print in a dog with grade 4 lameness (black arrow). Note the difference in the temperature in the paw print of the lame limb between figures 1A and 1B.
Fig. 2Thermal image of the paw prints in a healthy dog (L= left, R=right side).
Ground reaction forces (mean ± SD), average (avg) of the percentage (%) difference of the peak vertical force (PVF) in static position of the healthy and lame dogs and asymmetry index (ASI) of the healthy and lame dogs.
| Healthy Dogs mean | Lame Dogs mean | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left limb | Right limb | Lame limb | Non-lame limb | |
| PVF (100*N/N) | 20.94±2.1 | 18.05±2.9 | 5.44±6.4 | 30.01±5.0 |
| Avg % difference | 10.0 % | 72.4 % | ||
| ASI (%) | 5% | 36.2% | ||
(Avg % difference): The average of all trials for each patient was calculated and then the percentage difference between the left and right was calculated.
Fig. 3ROC curve for percent difference in peak force.
Fig. 4ROC curve for percent difference in MII.
Fig. 5ROC curves for comparison.