DefinitelyDressage.com

Love it. I wish they would sell these to horse owners. At present it is not for sale to horse owners at any price do to the need for training I think. It runs about $15K for the unit and training to vets.

Never heard of it

https://equinosis.com/

Years and years of research refining it.

Not impressed. I took my gelding to my vet. I had to leave him as I had to get to work. I told his assistant Max was lame on front left. Vet called me and said horse was sound. I said you obviously haven't lunged him as then it would be obvious. So he hooked this lameness locator to him and discovered he was lame on left front...the same as I has already told him. Just had to pay $300 for what I already knew. Mentioned it to a friend from college who is a vet in another State who says it's a gimmick. I agree.

My vet has one and she is very happy with it. I used it for a PPE and then again years later for a soundness check. Having data for a comparison was very useful.

Its a continuing trend of using technology to make up for lack of assessment and palpation skills.

Cymraes wrote:Not impressed. I took my gelding to my vet. I had to leave him as I had to get to work. I told his assistant Max was lame on front left. Vet called me and said horse was sound. I said you obviously haven't lunged him as then it would be obvious. So he hooked this lameness locator to him and discovered he was lame on left front...the same as I has already told him. Just had to pay $300 for what I already knew. Mentioned it to a friend from college who is a vet in another State who says it's a gimmick. I agree.

I'm confused with what you're not impressed about. I would be unimpressed with a vet that wasn't able to see an obvious lameness without out this gadget. In your case, the gadget wasn't necessary, but it did confirm the front end lameness, so I see at as an accurate diagnostic device. Perhaps it is helpful in those very subtle lameness where it is really difficult to see offness.

Hey, let's face it, there are some not-so-good vets out there these days. If this tool can help them with diagnosis, then I'm all for it.

My understanding is it can find lameness in more than one leg simultaneously. I am not aware of any other modality that can claim that with any accuracy and repeatability.

I am not sure why they are limiting the sale of this to vets. I disagree with that.

Tsavo wrote:My understanding is it can find lameness in more than one leg simultaneously. I am not aware of any other modality that can claim that with any accuracy and repeatability.

I am not sure why they are limiting the sale of this to vets. I disagree with that.

That's a good feature. The only way for a vet to do that now is to block one leg so they can see if then the other one shows lameness.

As to your other questions as to why not sell to the public, well.... ....why does that apply to a lot of things. We need a script for bute, but we can buy wormers which if used improperly can cause problems. I would take a wild guess that the reason is to avoid some law suit of some kind. If I were interested in this, then it wouldn't hurt to write and ask the company their reason.

MC, that makes some sense.

I am willing to sign away my right to sue if they sell me one. LOL.

I think the main reason is they want to keep the income stream in the profession. We have all manner of lay horse massagers and even non-vets who claim to be doing chiropractic. Since there is a fairly rigorous learning curve to understand the output on the Lameness Locator, I suspect it would actually be routinely misused by most lay people with no advanced science training. That is a reason to limit it's sale to the general public. But I have a PhD in a hard science and my own research requires more involved scientific analysis than the Lameness Locator. I can put a PowerPoint presentation together on how the locator works and how to determine its bias and precision. In that case I should qualify to purchase one and access the training I think. If I just got one I might be able to figure it out.

The Lameness locator can give rigorous feedback on how a rider is affecting their horse's gait. This has the potential to really help riders help their horses. I think it would be so wildly interesting to be able to link injuries of riders let's say to specific gait anomalies in their horses. I have never seen anyone show that. And it is probably anything but straightforward and simple minded.

ProudHorse wrote:Its a continuing trend of using technology to make up for lack of assessment and palpation skills.

This. I don't see the need, I'll take a vet with good eyes any day thanks.

Tsavo wrote:
I am not sure why they are limiting the sale of this to vets. I disagree with that.

If you wanted one of your own couldn't you just ask your vet to get one for you?

kande50 wrote:

Tsavo wrote:
I am not sure why they are limiting the sale of this to vets. I disagree with that.

If you wanted one of your own couldn't you just ask your vet to get one for you?

No. It is really amazing that lay people can purchase lasers and other treatment tools stuff but they won't sell a merely diagnostic tool to a lay person. They would not sell this to a Nobel recipient who wasn't a DVM. I do not think they would sell it to a Nobel recipient in physiology or medicine. I understand that there are nuances and you can't pick the thing up and just use it. But I also suggest this would not be the most complicated piece of equipment I have used by a long shot. There should be some way to test into being able to buy it even if you are not a DVM.

Quelah wrote:

ProudHorse wrote:Its a continuing trend of using technology to make up for lack of assessment and palpation skills.

This. I don't see the need, I'll take a vet with good eyes any day thanks.

It can measure things your vet literally can't see or can't rigorously quantify...

1. Evaluate mild or multiple limb lameness
2. Quantify effectiveness of diagnostic nerve & joint blocks
3. Gauge effectiveness of therapeutics
4. Monitor rehabilitation progress
5. Assess asymmetry in pre-purchase evaluations
6. Measure rider effects on lameness

https://equinosis.com/wp-content/upload ... -Web-1.pdf

Tsavo wrote:There should be some way to test into being able to buy it even if you are not a DVM.

So why wouldn't your vet let you buy into one for her practice and then allow you to use it?

Now I'm also wondering about baselines and controls, as it seems like getting them could be a problem?

kande50 wrote:

Tsavo wrote:There should be some way to test into being able to buy it even if you are not a DVM.

So why wouldn't your vet let you buy into one for her practice and then allow you to use it?

One of my vets has one. Because lay people can't buy them I am guessing vets have to swear up and down they will not resell to lay person.

kande50 wrote:Now I'm also wondering about baselines and controls, as it seems like getting them could be a problem?

I don't know what you mean by this.

Here's the second half of the classroom part of a lab on usage of the Lameness Locator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVhz2oladDo

The vet talks about many issues including what the LL adds to his diagnostic ability, the use of it in the issue of compensatory lameness, etc. The case study he presents is completely whack... 4 yr reiner who has been thru the mill and it shows. The blocking yielded some fascinatingly complex phenomenon. There are one million nuances to using the LL and the training is absolutely necessary but the over-arching issues are what any competent horse owner will have discussed at some point with their vet. For example I have discussed compensatory lameness with my vet.

The first part of the lab in the previous video explains the principle and some of the development of the LL. It is really an engineered fault detection device that uses basic stats and fixed values from years of study on sound horses to make comments on potential lameness. You need to be instantly familiar with the stats which are actually simple but you have to bring a feel to how you interpret them as in all other scientific endeavors. What do you do with outliers? In the case of the LL, I feel that answer is MUCH more straight forward than in some of my research. There is a slight art to working with the stats although the stats themselves are completely objective. None of this is beyond the competence of anyone with a grad degree working in the sciences.

It does not analyze leg movement, foot flight or anything like that. It only analyses asymmetry in the movement of the head and pelvis in a vertical direction with accelerometers. It measures impact phase and push off phase. The tolerance for "symmetric/sound" is 6 mm for the head and 3 mm for the pelvis. Because it samples much faster than the eye can register and because it has millimeter tolerances that humans can't detect, it can find things and help unravel issues that a traditional lameness exam cannot. The million nuances include things like are the readings the same on hard versus soft ground, level versus unlevel ground, rider versus no rider, and other issues. While the numbers are objective, the interpretation is not necessarily so. But when you repeat the readings under the same conditions, you WILL have two data sets that are both objective and comparable. It is directly analogous to repeated chemical measurement using an instrument in this regard.

I think using the LL for something like testing claims of various treatments in a before and after fashion is where the results would be most robust.

Quelah wrote:

ProudHorse wrote:Its a continuing trend of using technology to make up for lack of assessment and palpation skills.

This. I don't see the need, I'll take a vet with good eyes any day thanks.

Human versus machine...

Equine Vet J. 2012 Nov;44(6):652-6. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00571.x. Epub 2012 May 6.
Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation.

McCracken MJ1, Kramer J, Keegan KG, Lopes M, Wilson DA, Reed SK, LaCarrubba A, Rasch M.
Author information
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY:
Subjective evaluation of mild lameness has been shown to have poor interobserver reliability. Traditional methods of objective lameness evaluation require specialised conditions and equipment. Wireless inertial sensor systems have been developed to allow for simple, rapid, objective lameness detection in horses trotted over ground.
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivities of an inertial sensor system and subjective evaluation performed by experienced equine practitioners at detecting lameness in horses. We hypothesised that the inertial sensor system would identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than a consensus of 3 experienced equine veterinarians.
METHODS:
Fifteen horses were fitted with special shoes that allowed for lameness induction via sole pressure. Horses were simultaneously evaluated by 3 equine veterinarians and a wireless inertial sensor system. Horses were subjected to multiple trials: 1) before inserting the screw; 2) after inserting the screw to just touch the sole; and 3) after tightening the screw in half turn increments. The number of screw turns required for lameness identification in the correct limb by the inertial sensors and by consensus of 3 equine veterinarians was compared using the Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS:
The inertial sensor system selected the limb with the induced lameness after fewer screw turns than did the 3 veterinarians (P<0.0001). The inertial sensor system selected the correct limb before the 3 veterinarians in 35 trials (58.33%), the evaluators selected the correct limb before the inertial sensors in 5 trials (8.33%), and in 20 trials (33.33%) they selected the correct limb at the same time.
POTENTIAL RELEVANCE:
The inertial sensor system was able to identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than the consensus of 3 equine veterinarians. The inertial sensor system may be an effective aid to lameness localisation in clinical cases.
© 2012 EVJ Ltd.

Tsavo wrote:

kande50 wrote:Now I'm also wondering about baselines and controls, as it seems like getting them could be a problem?

I don't know what you mean by this.

If you're planning to do lameness tests the first thing you do is establish a baseline by trotting the horse out and paying attention to how lame he is, and where. Then you flex or block or whatever, and then you trot the horse out again and compare the post test trot out to the baseline trot out.

You could do the same thing with a device like this, but then you're right back to the same flexion test/nerve block kind of testing. So I would think the best use for it would be to monitor horses when they're still sound to get a baseline, and then continue to monitor to try to pick up the first significant changes, before the problem became visible to the naked eye?

Otherwise, why invest in a piece of equipment to give you the same information you can get through observation?

The software has tolerances established from many many sound horses. There is no reason to establish a sound baseline with another horse.

Flexion tests are not reliable.

Tsavo wrote:The software has tolerances established from many many sound horses. There is no reason to establish a sound baseline with another horse.

I can't see how that would work when you're measuring such small differences. IOW, it seems like the differences between individual horses used to establish the baseline would be in the same range as the differences one was trying to measure. And if the differences one was trying to measure were greater than the variability in the baseline, then you'd be right back to getting the same information you could get from observation.

Course maybe that's why they're so interested in marketing it the way they do, so trained vets could sort out the horses whose baselines were outside the one they'd established?

kande50 wrote: And if the differences one was trying to measure were greater than the variability in the baseline, then you'd be right back to getting the same information you could get from observation.

This is incorrect. The LL samples the movement at 10 times the frequency than the human eye can and can see and statistically establish asymmetry at much smaller scales and still above the noise level than humans can.

This is why it has the potential to shut down a lot of treatment modalities.

Tsavo wrote:
This is why it has the potential to shut down a lot of treatment modalities.

Yes, I can see where it would be useful for that purpose, because then it would be used in a controlled study where an accurate baseline could be established. What I was considering is whether it would be of any practical use for diagnosing lameness in the field.

These are the uses one vet has for the LL...

The Lameness Locator® objectively detects and quantifies body movement asymmetry in the horse. It can detect lameness when the eye cannot. It is a powerful tool in the following situations:

When a horse fails to respond to treatment because an area causing lameness has not been identified
When lameness location is unknown (horse feels off to the rider, but looks sound)
Multi-limb lameness
Pre-purchase exam, to help rule out unobserved lameness

Whether the horse is lame
The strength of the evidence indicating lameness
The limb or limbs involved
The part of the stride cycle at which peak pain is occurring (swing phase or support phase)

https://www.rameyequine.com/lameness-locater

My horse has had it put on her twice. The first time was the 2nd trip to the vet clinic when her lameness did not improve with stall rest, wrapping, previcox, then hand walking. It was determined thru the LL and a nerve block and other diagnostic tests that she was worse than originally detected by the human eye/feel/X-rays and ultrasound.

4 months later after complete stall rest and irap treatments, the LL was put back on her. We were able to compare the first report to the 2nd report and determine they was marked improvement in her gait. She can now move further in to her ehab program.

Hayburner wrote:My horse has had it put on her twice. The first time was the 2nd trip to the vet clinic when her lameness did not improve with stall rest, wrapping, previcox, then hand walking. It was determined thru the LL and a nerve block and other diagnostic tests that she was worse than originally detected by the human eye/feel/X-rays and ultrasound.

4 months later after complete stall rest and irap treatments, the LL was put back on her. We were able to compare the first report to the 2nd report and determine they was marked improvement in her gait. She can now move further in to her ehab program.

Nice!

This technology is so promising.

Tsavo - One thing that I should mention when the LL was 1st used/tested she was trotted on hard pavement. The 2nd time she was trotted on the indoor arena footing. There wasn't a huge improvement when trotted on the arena footing. I had the vet check her on hard pavement so that we were more apples to apples and there showed a marked improvement.

So does the footing have something to do with the test results? Should you always recheck with using the same footing/rider/tack etc?

In my case, it seemed to make a difference.

Hayburner wrote:TSo does the footing have something to do with the test results? Should you always recheck with using the same footing/rider/tack etc?

And then there are those pesky lamenesses that wax and wane all on their own, even though it seems like nothing changes significantly to cause the changes in the degree of lameness. Stifle/back injuries come to mind here. The horse never seems to recover completely, but they're so much better some days than others.

I was discussing the Lameness Locator with my vet and he said ANOTHER type of device was in development that works on a completely different principle.

The Lameness locator uses acceleration in the vertical direction at the poll for the fronts and the croup for hinds plus a gyroscope to align the data to when the RF is on the ground.

He didn't know what principle the new device uses but just knew it was not what the LL uses. I am very excited to hear about this!

Tsavo wrote:

Quelah wrote:

ProudHorse wrote:Its a continuing trend of using technology to make up for lack of assessment and palpation skills.

This. I don't see the need, I'll take a vet with good eyes any day thanks.

Human versus machine...

Equine Vet J. 2012 Nov;44(6):652-6. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00571.x. Epub 2012 May 6.
Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation.

McCracken MJ1, Kramer J, Keegan KG, Lopes M, Wilson DA, Reed SK, LaCarrubba A, Rasch M.
Author information
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY:
Subjective evaluation of mild lameness has been shown to have poor interobserver reliability. Traditional methods of objective lameness evaluation require specialised conditions and equipment. Wireless inertial sensor systems have been developed to allow for simple, rapid, objective lameness detection in horses trotted over ground.
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivities of an inertial sensor system and subjective evaluation performed by experienced equine practitioners at detecting lameness in horses. We hypothesised that the inertial sensor system would identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than a consensus of 3 experienced equine veterinarians.
METHODS:
Fifteen horses were fitted with special shoes that allowed for lameness induction via sole pressure. Horses were simultaneously evaluated by 3 equine veterinarians and a wireless inertial sensor system. Horses were subjected to multiple trials: 1) before inserting the screw; 2) after inserting the screw to just touch the sole; and 3) after tightening the screw in half turn increments. The number of screw turns required for lameness identification in the correct limb by the inertial sensors and by consensus of 3 equine veterinarians was compared using the Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS:
The inertial sensor system selected the limb with the induced lameness after fewer screw turns than did the 3 veterinarians (P<0.0001). The inertial sensor system selected the correct limb before the 3 veterinarians in 35 trials (58.33%), the evaluators selected the correct limb before the inertial sensors in 5 trials (8.33%), and in 20 trials (33.33%) they selected the correct limb at the same time.
POTENTIAL RELEVANCE:
The inertial sensor system was able to identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than the consensus of 3 equine veterinarians. The inertial sensor system may be an effective aid to lameness localisation in clinical cases.
© 2012 EVJ Ltd.

Perhaps we should questions how well trained the vets are in assessing lameness.

ProudHorse wrote:

Tsavo wrote:

Quelah wrote:
This. I don't see the need, I'll take a vet with good eyes any day thanks.

Human versus machine...

Equine Vet J. 2012 Nov;44(6):652-6. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00571.x. Epub 2012 May 6.
Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation.

McCracken MJ1, Kramer J, Keegan KG, Lopes M, Wilson DA, Reed SK, LaCarrubba A, Rasch M.
Author information
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY:
Subjective evaluation of mild lameness has been shown to have poor interobserver reliability. Traditional methods of objective lameness evaluation require specialised conditions and equipment. Wireless inertial sensor systems have been developed to allow for simple, rapid, objective lameness detection in horses trotted over ground.
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivities of an inertial sensor system and subjective evaluation performed by experienced equine practitioners at detecting lameness in horses. We hypothesised that the inertial sensor system would identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than a consensus of 3 experienced equine veterinarians.
METHODS:
Fifteen horses were fitted with special shoes that allowed for lameness induction via sole pressure. Horses were simultaneously evaluated by 3 equine veterinarians and a wireless inertial sensor system. Horses were subjected to multiple trials: 1) before inserting the screw; 2) after inserting the screw to just touch the sole; and 3) after tightening the screw in half turn increments. The number of screw turns required for lameness identification in the correct limb by the inertial sensors and by consensus of 3 equine veterinarians was compared using the Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS:
The inertial sensor system selected the limb with the induced lameness after fewer screw turns than did the 3 veterinarians (P<0.0001). The inertial sensor system selected the correct limb before the 3 veterinarians in 35 trials (58.33%), the evaluators selected the correct limb before the inertial sensors in 5 trials (8.33%), and in 20 trials (33.33%) they selected the correct limb at the same time.
POTENTIAL RELEVANCE:
The inertial sensor system was able to identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than the consensus of 3 equine veterinarians. The inertial sensor system may be an effective aid to lameness localisation in clinical cases.
© 2012 EVJ Ltd.

Perhaps we should questions how well trained the vets are in assessing lameness.

The machine can sample much faster than the human eye can. It will always be better in that respect alone. Also the machine has a lower detection level than the human eye.

The machine is only as good as its programmer. I continue to be unimpressed by veterinarians who have a poor eye or palpation skills and rely on technology to assess lameness.

It's not a matter of programming at this point. It is a statistical matter where the data are sometimes too subtle or too complex (as in the case of multiple limb lamenesses) for the human eye to detect. The LL can detect lamenesses that humans simply are not physically able to detect and they showed that.

What might be an open question is whether that ability to exceed the human eye actually matters in terms of treating pathology.

Those of you who are skeptics and think vets should be able to "see" the lameness - DO you believe in X-rays? (Why can't the vet palpate the area?) Do you believe in Thermography to find subtle inflammation? (Why can't the vet feel the heat?) WHen you r child has a fever, do you use a thermometer or jsut "guess" they are hot?

My point is that technology "sees" so much better than ewe do.

A friend thought her 17 yo GP horse needed his hocks done (they had been done before). Vet used LL and diagnosed two other areas of concern - NOT the hocks. THose areas were injected and horsie is back to his old self.