Page 156 - Adams and Stashak's Lameness in Horses, 7th Edition

122 Chapter 2

2. Baxter GM, Stashak TS. Examination for lameness. In Adams and
Stashak’s Lameness in Horses, 6th ed. Baxter GM ed. Wiley‐
VetBooks.ir 3. Busschers E, van Weeren PR. Use of the flexion test of the distal
Blackwell, Ames, IA, 2011;109–150.
forelimb in the sound horse: repeatability and effect of age, gen­
der, weight, height and fetlock joint range of motion. J Vet Med A
Physiol Pathol Clin Med 2001;48:413–427.
4. Churchill EA. The methodology of diagnosis of hind leg lameness.
Proc Am Assoc Equine Pract 1979;25:297–304.
5. Dyson SJ. Lameness due to pain associated with the distal inter­
phalangeal joint: 45 cases. Equine Vet J 1991;23:128–135.
6. Dyson SJ, Arthur RM, Palmer SE, et al. Suspensory ligament
desmitis. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1995;11:177–215.
7. Keg PR, van Weeren PR, Back W, et al. Influence of the force applied
and its period of application on the outcome of the flexion test of
the distal forelimb of the horse. Vet Rec 1997;141:463–466.
8. Keg PR, van Weeren, PR, Schamhardt HC. Variations in the force
applied to flexion tests of the distal limb of horses. Vet Rec.
1997;141:435–438.
9. Marshall JF, Lund DG, Voute LC. Use of a wireless, inertial sen­
sor‐based system to objectively evaluate flexion tests in the horse.
Equine Vet J Suppl 2012;43:8–11.
10. Pleasant RS, Baker JB, Muhlbauer MC, et al. Stress reaction and
stress fractures of the proximal palmar aspect of the third meta­
carpal bone in horses: 58 cases (1980–1990) J Am Vet Med Assoc
1992;201:1918–1923.
11. Ramey DW. Prospective evaluation of forelimb flexion tests in
practice: clinical response, radiographic correlation, and predictive
value for future lameness. Proc Am Assoc Equine Pract 1997;43:
116–120.
12. Ross MW. Manipulation. In Diagnosis and Management of
Figure 2.112. Dorsal view of the rectal examination showing Lameness in the Horse, Ross MW, Dyson SJ, eds. Elsevier, St.
evaluation of the symmetry of the pelvis. One side of the pelvis Louis MO, 2011;80–88.
should be compared with the other. The pelvis can also be palpated 13. Sardari K, Kazemi H. Evaluation of clinical examination for dif­
for crepitation while the horse is swayed from the side to side while ferential diagnosis of lameness by navicular apparatus or heel
pain in horses. Pak J Biol Sci 2008;11:1754–1756.
standing or during movement. 14. Starke SD, Willems E, Head M, et al. Proximal hindlimb flexion in
the horse: effect on movement symmetry and implications for
defining soundness. Equine Vet J 2012;44:657–663.
problems and at times differentiating between lameness 15. Stashak TS. Examination for lameness. In Adams’ Lameness in
and neurologic disease can be very difficult (see Chapter 12 Horses, 5th ed. Stashak TS, ed., Lippincott Williams and Wilkins,
for more information on neurologic examination). Philadelphia, 2002;113–183.
16. Strand E, Martin GS, Crawford MP, et al. Intra‐articular pressure,
elastance and range of motion in healthy and injured racehorse
metacarpophalangeal joints. Equine Vet J 1998; 30:520–527.
References 17. Turner TA. How to subjectively and objectively examine the
equine foot. Proc Am Assoc Equine Pract 2006;52:531–537.
1. Armentrout AR, Beard WL, White BJ, et al. A comparative study 18. Verschooten F, Verbeeck J. Flexion test of the metacarpophalan­
of proximal flexion in horses: 5 versus 60 seconds. Equine Vet J geal and interphalangeal joints and flexion angle of the metacar­
2012;44:420–424. pophalangeal joint in sound horses. Equine Vet J 1997;29:50–54.