Measuring Volumetric Changes of Equine Distal Limbs: A Pilot Study Examining Jumping Exercise

Abstract

Equine athletes can incur musculoskeletal injuries due to repetitive loading during training and competition. Prior to signs of lameness, horse trainers and veterinarians may observe swelling in the distal limbs, where injuries most frequently occur. Early observations may guide modulation of training to manage physiological stress and mitigate risk of injury. However, these observations of changing limb volume can be subjective and imprecise. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and applicability of a tablet-mounted, 3D scanner to measure and record distal limb volumes of horses before and after exercise. Users recorded scans of a cylinder of known volume with errors up to 8%. Experienced users' measures were biased (i.e., consistently overestimated). The scanner was able to detect statistically significant increases in volume for both fore and hind limbs after one jumping session (310-2058 cm³). Age and intensity of workload may play a role in magnitude of limb swelling, but had mixed conclusions between fore and hind limbs. More studies with additional horses must be performed to solidify these relationships. The evaluated 3D scanner is a low-cost, accessible tool that was able to detect changes in limb swelling as a result of exercise and mechanical stress. With continued research, this information may guide training programs to decrease injury and maximize performance of equine athletes in the future.

Keywords: 3D scanning; exercise; horse; inflammation; jumping; swelling.

Figure 1

Processed equine distal fore limb mesh (left) relative to equine forelimb anatomy (right). All scans were cropped from the apex of the accessory carpal bone or calcaneus to the dorsal midline of the coronet band.

Figure 2

Interoperator scanning differences. Means and standard deviations for measured volumes of an aluminum cylinder from 3 users, compared to actual volume (blue line: 2620 cm³). User 2 volumes (2417 ± 91 cm³) were significantly different than volumes measured by Users 1 (2802 ± 44 cm³) and 3 (2727 ± 45 cm³). Users 1 and 3 were not significantly different and both consistently overestimated volumes (4%–7%).