Illusion100
Well-Known Member
Follow on from this thread.
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...u-manage-Navicular&highlight=manage+navicular
Work-up has been done(ish).
Horse trotted up on concrete, then lunged on soft and hard surface. RF was showing up as a bit of an issue. Then both forelimbs flexed. LF, not a lame step. RF, lame from the get go. I'd say a consistent 2-3/10ths after flexion. Nerve blocks bypassed. No hoof testing/wedge test/frog test performed.
X-rays of both front feet done. Nothing in the feet, no bony change jumping out, no rotation and good balance in general. Good sole thickness, scope to shorten toes up.
Now, this is where I'm a bit perplexed.....
Vet did not feel that blocking would be of any benefit at this stage as they felt the degree of lameness would not be altered enough to warrant it.
I agree, the horse wasn't hopping lame after flexion but it was obvious, you couldn't miss it, nothing iffy about it. My little brain can't figure out why blocking wasn't done? Ime, a low level but evident lameness usually always disappears after blocking and if not you tend to have a much more complicated/serious issue. I'm also a touch confused why x-rays were performed on the forefeet without having blocked as the problem could be anywhere in the limb? X-rays aren't cheap and neither do they necessarily equate to lameness presented unless at least supported by blocking results?
X-rays did however show bony change in the RF fetlock, again this may or may not be the cause/main factor of the lameness but why was blocking still not performed at this stage to assess this clinical finding in relation to the positive flexion?
When asked if Navicular could be a potential cause, it wasn't ruled out but expressed that it is usually bilateral. Wouldn't be the 1st time Navicular has presented unilaterally, particularly in the early stages.
Advice was to bute and ride for the next few weeks, then take off bute and see what happens. Bar shoes were suggested also but I can't justify why based on todays findings?
So we've wandered off nonethewiser about the cause of the lameness but costs are now up to nearly £400. What am I missing???
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...u-manage-Navicular&highlight=manage+navicular
Work-up has been done(ish).
Horse trotted up on concrete, then lunged on soft and hard surface. RF was showing up as a bit of an issue. Then both forelimbs flexed. LF, not a lame step. RF, lame from the get go. I'd say a consistent 2-3/10ths after flexion. Nerve blocks bypassed. No hoof testing/wedge test/frog test performed.
X-rays of both front feet done. Nothing in the feet, no bony change jumping out, no rotation and good balance in general. Good sole thickness, scope to shorten toes up.
Now, this is where I'm a bit perplexed.....
Vet did not feel that blocking would be of any benefit at this stage as they felt the degree of lameness would not be altered enough to warrant it.
I agree, the horse wasn't hopping lame after flexion but it was obvious, you couldn't miss it, nothing iffy about it. My little brain can't figure out why blocking wasn't done? Ime, a low level but evident lameness usually always disappears after blocking and if not you tend to have a much more complicated/serious issue. I'm also a touch confused why x-rays were performed on the forefeet without having blocked as the problem could be anywhere in the limb? X-rays aren't cheap and neither do they necessarily equate to lameness presented unless at least supported by blocking results?
X-rays did however show bony change in the RF fetlock, again this may or may not be the cause/main factor of the lameness but why was blocking still not performed at this stage to assess this clinical finding in relation to the positive flexion?
When asked if Navicular could be a potential cause, it wasn't ruled out but expressed that it is usually bilateral. Wouldn't be the 1st time Navicular has presented unilaterally, particularly in the early stages.
Advice was to bute and ride for the next few weeks, then take off bute and see what happens. Bar shoes were suggested also but I can't justify why based on todays findings?
So we've wandered off nonethewiser about the cause of the lameness but costs are now up to nearly £400. What am I missing???