4.2 Article

Kinematic analysis of Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers trotting on a treadmill

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-10-03-0039

关键词

Gait analysis; dog; kinematic

资金

  1. FAPESP (The State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation)
  2. CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to evaluate kinematic patterns in clinically normal Labrador and Rottweiler dogs trotting on a treadmill at a constant velocity. Methods: Ten Labrador Retrievers aged from 2.2 to 5.1 years, and 10 Rottweilers aged from two to 5.9 years were used. A three-dimensional capture system was used to perform analysis of joint kinematics. Kinematic data were collected by use of a triple-camera system. The kinematic study was performed first on the right side of the dog, and then on the left side. Data were analysed by use of a motion-analysis program. Flexion and extension joint angles, angular velocity and angular acceleration were determined for the shoulder, elbow, carpal, hip, stifle, and tarsal joints. Results: Within each group, the differences between the right and left limbs in all variables were not significant. Significant differences occurred between Labradors and Rottweilers in the following categories: angular displacement and minimum angular acceleration of the stifle (Rottweiler >Labrador); angular displacement and maximum angular velocity of the tarsus (Rottweiler >Labrador); minimum angular velocity of the shoulder (Labrador >Rottweiler); angular displacement, maximum angular acceleration, maximum angular velocity, and minimum angular velocity of the elbow (Labrador>Rottweiler); and maximum angle and maximum angular velocity of the carpus (Labrador>Rottweiler). Clinical significance: Both breeds had similar kinematic patterns, but there were magnitude differences, especially of the elbow and stifle joints. Therefore, each breed should have a specific database.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据