Hoof accelerations and ground reaction forces of Thoroughbred racehorses measured on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces.

Authors:
Jacob J Setterbo
Jacob J Setterbo
University of California-Davis
United States
Tanya C Garcia
Tanya C Garcia
University of California Davis
Ian P Campbell
Ian P Campbell
University of Colorado
United States
Jessica M Morgan
Jessica M Morgan
School of Veterinary Medicine
Mont Hubbard
Mont Hubbard
University of California
Susan M Stover
Susan M Stover
J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory

Am J Vet Res 2009 Oct;70(10):1220-9

Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

Objective: To compare hoof acceleration and ground reaction force (GRF) data among dirt, synthetic, and turf surfaces in Thoroughbred racehorses.

Animals: 3 healthy Thoroughbred racehorses.

Procedures: Forelimb hoof accelerations and GRFs were measured with an accelerometer and a dynamometric horseshoe during trot and canter on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces at a racecourse. Maxima, minima, temporal components, and a measure of vibration were extracted from the data. Acceleration and GRF variables were compared statistically among surfaces.

Results: The synthetic surface often had the lowest peak accelerations, mean vibration, and peak GRFs. Peak acceleration during hoof landing was significantly smaller for the synthetic surface (mean + or - SE, 28.5g + or - 2.9g) than for the turf surface (42.9g + or - 3.8g). Hoof vibrations during hoof landing for the synthetic surface were < 70% of those for the dirt and turf surfaces. Peak GRF for the synthetic surface (11.5 + or - 0.4 N/kg) was 83% and 71% of those for the dirt (13.8 + or - 0.3 N/kg) and turf surfaces (16.1 + or - 0.7 N/kg), respectively.

Conclusions And Clinical Relevance: The relatively low hoof accelerations, vibrations, and peak GRFs associated with the synthetic surface evaluated in the present study indicated that synthetic surfaces have potential for injury reduction in Thoroughbred racehorses. However, because of the unique material properties and different nature of individual dirt, synthetic, and turf racetrack surfaces, extending the results of this study to encompass all track surfaces should be done with caution.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.70.10.1220DOI Listing
October 2009
65 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

synthetic surface
20
dirt synthetic
16
synthetic turf
16
turf surfaces
12
hoof accelerations
12
track surfaces
12
synthetic
10
peak grfs
8
surfaces
8
thoroughbred racehorses
8
hoof landing
8
turf track
8
ground reaction
8
turf
7
hoof
7
dirt
6
surface
6
peak
5
landing synthetic
4
vibrations hoof
4

Similar Publications