Clinic for Ruminants, Vetsuisse-Faculty, University of Bern, 3001 Bern, Switzerland.
Clinic for Ruminants, Vetsuisse-Faculty, University of Bern, 3001 Bern, Switzerland.
J Dairy Sci. 2021 Feb;104(2):2302-2307. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-19135. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
In cattle with foot diseases, application of a block on the healthy partner claw is a common method of pain relief. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of wooden claw blocks on locomotion characteristics and weight distribution in healthy (group C; n = 17) versus lame (group L; n = 17) cattle. Group L was further subdivided into group L1 (lameness score ≤3; n = 7) and group L2 (lameness score >3; n = 10). We performed lameness scoring using a numeric rating system and measured locomotion characteristics using 2 accelerometers (400 Hz; kinematic outcome = stance phase duration; kinetic outcomes = foot load and toe-off) and a 4-scale weighing platform (difference of mean weight distribution across the limbs; ∆) before and after application of a claw block. We applied claw blocks to a randomly assigned lateral or medial claw of the fore or hindlimb in group C cows, and on the healthy partner claw in group L cows. Variables were expressed as differences across limbs. We used 1-way ANOVA to determine the differences between groups C and L and between groups L1 and L2 for ∆ after application of the claw block. We performed paired t tests to compare variables before and after application of the claw block in groups C and L. Group L scored higher on the numeric rating system than group C (mean ± SD, 3.40 ± 0.62 vs. 1.87 ± 0.28) and showed greater differences in relative stance phase duration (16.34 ± 10.78% vs. 2.13 ± 1.94%), foot load (9.68 ± 8.06 g vs. 3.26 ± 3.69 g), toe-off (3.91 ± 3.14 g vs. 0.78 ± 0.66 g), and ∆ (53.62 ± 28.85% vs. 8.52 ± 6.19%). In group C, we observed an increase of 12.17 percentage points in ∆ after block application, from 8.52 ± 6.19% to 20.69 ± 17.01%. Compared with the baseline, group L showed a decrease in numeric rating system score (2.88 ± 0.49 vs. 3.40 ± 0.62) and a decrease in differences between the limbs in relative stance phase duration (7.66 ± 9.96% vs. 16.34 ± 10.78%) and foot load (4.26 ± 4.14 g vs. 9.68 ± 8.06 g) after application of a claw block. Group L2 showed smaller ∆ after application of a claw block than group L1 (-7.8 ± 8.7% vs. 10.4 ± 7.6%). After block application in group L, we observed smaller differences across the limbs in variables measured to describe gait-cycle characteristics while walking, but no significant improvement while standing. We concluded that application of a claw block must be combined with other methods of pain relief, such as analgesic medication.
在患有足部疾病的牛中,将木块应用于健康牛的蹄子上是一种常见的缓解疼痛的方法。本研究的目的是评估木制蹄子木块对健康牛(C 组;n=17)和跛足牛(L 组;n=17)的运动特征和体重分布的影响。L 组进一步分为 L1 组(跛足评分≤3;n=7)和 L2 组(跛足评分>3;n=10)。我们使用数字评分系统对跛足程度进行评分,并使用 2 个加速度计(400 Hz;运动学结果=站立阶段持续时间;动力学结果=足载和趾离)和 4 级称重平台(肢体之间的平均体重分布差异;Δ)在应用木块之前和之后测量运动特征。我们在 C 组牛的前肢或后肢的任意侧爪或内侧爪上随机应用木块,在 L 组牛的健康伙伴蹄子上应用木块。变量表示四肢之间的差异。我们使用单因素方差分析确定 C 组和 L 组之间以及 L1 组和 L2 组之间应用木块后的Δ之间的差异。我们对 C 组和 L 组在应用木块前后的变量进行配对 t 检验。与 C 组相比,L 组的数字评分系统得分更高(平均值±标准差,3.40±0.62 对 1.87±0.28),相对站立阶段持续时间(16.34±10.78%对 2.13±1.94%)、足载(9.68±8.06 g 对 3.26±3.69 g)、趾离(3.91±3.14 g 对 0.78±0.66 g)和Δ(53.62±28.85%对 8.52±6.19%)的差异更大。在 C 组中,我们观察到应用木块后Δ增加了 12.17 个百分点,从 8.52±6.19%增加到 20.69±17.01%。与基线相比,L 组的数字评分系统评分下降(2.88±0.49 对 3.40±0.62),相对站立阶段持续时间(7.66±9.96%对 16.34±10.78%)和足载(4.26±4.14 g 对 9.68±8.06 g)的肢体差异减小。与 L1 组相比,L2 组应用木块后Δ更小(-7.8±8.7%对 10.4±7.6%)。在 L 组应用木块后,我们观察到在步态特征测量的变量中,四肢之间的差异减小,但站立时没有明显改善。我们得出结论,应用木块必须与其他缓解疼痛的方法(如镇痛药)结合使用。