The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and jockey centre of mass displacements at gallop

Abstract

Horseshoes influence how horses’ hooves interact with different ground surfaces, during the impact, loading and push-off phases of a stride cycle. Consequently, they impact on the biomechanics of horses’ proximal limb segments and upper body. By implication, different shoe and surface combinations could drive changes in the magnitude and stability of movement patterns in horse-jockey dyads. This study aimed to quantify centre of mass (COM) displacements in horse-jockey dyads galloping on turf and artificial tracks in four shoeing conditions: 1) aluminium; 2) barefoot; 3) GluShu; and 4) steel. Thirteen retired racehorses and two jockeys at the British Racing School were recruited for this intervention study. Tri-axial acceleration data were collected close to the COM for the horse (girth) and jockey (kidney-belt), using iPhones (Apple Inc.) equipped with an iOS app (SensorLog, sample rate = 50 Hz). Shoe-surface combinations were tested in a randomized order and horse-jockey pairings remained constant. Tri-axial acceleration data from gallop runs were filtered using bandpass Butterworth filters with cut-off frequencies of 15 Hz and 1 Hz, then integrated for displacement using Matlab. Peak displacement was assessed in both directions (positive ‘maxima’, negative ‘minima’) along the cranio-caudal (CC, positive = forwards), medio-lateral (ML, positive = right) and dorso-ventral (DV, positive = up) axes for all strides with frequency ≥2 Hz (mean = 2.06 Hz). Linear mixed-models determined whether surfaces, shoes or shoe-surface interactions (fixed factors) significantly affected the displacement patterns observed, with day, run and horse-jockey pairs included as random factors; significance was set at p<0.05. Data indicated that surface-type significantly affected peak COM displacements in all directions for the horse (p<0.0005) and for all directions (p≤0.008) but forwards in the jockey. The largest differences were observed in the DV-axis, with an additional 5.7 mm and 2.5 mm of downwards displacement for the horse and jockey, respectively, on the artificial surface. Shoeing condition significantly affected all displacement parameters except ML-axis minima for the horse (p≤0.007), and all displacement parameters for the jockey (p<0.0005). Absolute differences were again largest vertically, with notable similarities amongst displacements from barefoot and aluminium trials compared to GluShu and steel. Shoe-surface interactions affected all but CC-axis minima for the jockey (p≤0.002), but only the ML-axis minima and maxima and DV-axis maxima for the horse (p≤0.008). The results support the idea that hoof-surface interface interventions can significantly affect horse and jockey upper-body displacements. Greater sink of hooves on impact, combined with increased push-off during the propulsive phase, could explain the higher vertical displacements on the artificial track. Variations in distal limb mass associated with shoe-type may drive compensatory COM displacements to minimize the energetic cost of movement. The artificial surface and steel shoes provoked the least CC-axis movement of the jockey, so may promote greatest stability. However, differences between horse and jockey mean displacements indicated DV-axis and CC-axis offsets with compensatory increases and decreases, suggesting the dyad might operate within displacement limits to maintain stability. Further work is needed to relate COM displacements to hoof kinematics and to determine whether there is an optimum configuration of COM displacement to optimise performance and minimise injury.