Noseband type and tightness level affect pressure on the horse's face at trot

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Poor noseband adjustment could create high pressures that may risk pain or tissue damage. OBJECTIVES: To quantify sub-noseband pressures dorsally over the nasal bone and ventrally over the mandibular rami for a Cavesson, Swedish (crank), Drop and Flash noseband at five tightness levels (2.0 to 0.0 finger equivalents). STUDY DESIGN: In vivo experiments. METHODS: Eight high-level dressage horses were ridden at the trot in a straight line by their usual riders. Two small pressure mats, attached to the noseband over the nasal bone and the mandibular rami, collected force (N) and pressure (kPa) data from four noseband types (Cavesson/Swedish/Flash/Drop) each adjusted to five tightness levels (2.0/1.5/1.0/0.5/0.0 finger equivalents) based on the use of a taper gauge. Noseband tightness and types were compared using Friedman's analyses with post hoc Wilcoxon tests (p ≤ 0.01). RESULTS: Pressures (median and [25th and 75th percentiles]) and forces increased with tightness for all noseband types with higher mean pressures consistently recorded on the mandibles (Cavesson: 9.1 [5.0, 12.5] kPa, Swedish: 10.5 [6.3, 14.9] kPa, Flash: 8.0 [3.6, 15.2] kPa) than the nasal bones (Cavesson: 2.8 [1.1, 4.7] kPa, Swedish: 4.3 [3.1, 7.4] kPa, Flash: 4.9 [3.0, 7.3] kPa, p ≤ 0.002). None of the measured nasal pressures or forces differed significantly between tightness levels of 2.0 (1.6 [0.6, 3.6] kPa) and 1.5 fingers (2.9 [1.3, 4.1] kPa), but these values significantly increased from 1.0 (3.1 [1.5, 4.9] kPa), 0.5 (4.2 [2.3, 6.2] kPa), and 0.0 finger tightness (6.4 [3.8, 10.3] kPa) for most variables (p ≤ 0.004). No differences were found in mean/maximal nasal and mandibular pressures when fitted with a Cavesson or Swedish noseband. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Behavioural and physiological parameters were not measured. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal and mandibular pressures increased with noseband tightness, with 1.0 finger laxity or less associated with significantly and incrementally higher pressures than 1.5 or 2.0 finger tightness.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.