Page 111 - Canine Lameness

References 83

Box 5.2 Canine Muscle Test (C-MT) Scores
Scoring of the patient’s ability to maintain a standing position of the tested limb (i.e. the limb
on the ground) for approximately 30 seconds when the contralateral limb is lifted (i.e. the abil-
ity to isometrically brace against gravity):
5 (Normal) = Able to maintain on an incline
●
4 (Good) = Able to maintain on an incline, but shows compensation *
●
3 (Fair) = Able to maintain on neutral ground
●
2 (Poor) = Able to maintain on neutral ground, but shows compensation *
●
1 (Trace) = Failure to maintain on neutral ground
●
0 (Zero) = Non-weight-bearing on tested limb on neutral ground
●
* Compensation is defined as breaking the isometric hold by shifting weight to another limb, failing to maintain the
standing position or muscle trembling.

likely to be associated with a neurological cause. Weakness in the presence of decreased PROM or
flexibility may be related to each other. For example, hip osteoarthritis is associated with muscle
weakness in people (Loureiro et al. 2013). A similar finding has been observed in dogs by the
author and seen as a strength score of 2 and a hip drop during the C‐MT. This may be due to hip
joint pain and gluteal muscle weakness secondary to decreased joint range of motion (since a mus-
cle weakens when it cannot contract through the full range of motion). In this instance, specific
diagnostics of the gluteal muscle group may not be indicated, but the strength score will be benefi-
cial for the purpose of rehabilitation treatment planning and monitoring. Specific areas of weak-
ness can be used to develop more specialized diagnostic plans. For example, the evaluator can look
for particular signs that indicate pelvic limb weakness such as a pelvic drop (gluteal weakness),
increased tarsal flexion angle (Achilles complex weakness), and digital pads directed forward
(deep digital flexor weakness). If increased tarsal flexion is noted during the C‐MT, the tester
would go on to further evaluate the tarsal extenders with flexibility testing and palpation. Findings
from these specific muscle evaluations can be used to determine which diagnostics may be benefi-
cial for determining the underlying cause of lameness (e.g. ultrasound).

References

Bascuñán, A.L., Kieves, N., Goh, C. et al. (2016). Evaluation of factors influencing thigh circumference
measurement in dogs. Veterinary Evidence 1 (2) https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/
article/view/33.
Cookson, J.C. and Kent, B.E. (1979). Orthopedic manual therapy – an overview. Part I: the extremities.
Physical Therapy 59 (2): 136–146.
Freund, K.A., Kieves, N.R., Hart, J.L. et al. (2016). Assessment of novel digital and smartphone goniometers
for measurement of canine stifle joint angles. American Journal of Veterinary Research 77 (7): 749–755.
Hady, L.L., Fosgate, G.T., and Weh, J.M. (2015). Comparison of range of motion in Labrador Retrievers
and Border Collies. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health 7 (4): 122–127.
Jaegger, G., Marcellin‐Little, D.J., and Levine, D. (2002). Reliability of goniometry in Labrador
Retrievers. American Journal of Veterinary Research 63 (7): 979–986.