The Equine Education Hub

Course curriculum

Background: There is limited information documenting hind foot conformation. Objectives: To describe the shape of the lateral aspect of the hoof capsule of hindlimbs in horses of variable breeds; within horses, to compare the conformation of the hoof capsule of forelimbs and hindlimbs and determine the orientation of the distal phalanx within the hoof capsule in hindlimbs. Study design: Cross-sectional; convenience sample. Methods: Lateral photographs of the fore and hind feet and lateromedial radiographs of the hind feet were obtained using standardised methods. Differences among breed and shoeing status groups were assessed using multivariable mixed-effects linear regression models. Angular parameters and ratios of linear measurements were compared between fore and hind feet; angular radiological variables and photographic parameters of the hind feet were compared. Results: Among 225 horses, the mean dorsal hoof wall angles (DHWA) for fore and hind feet were similar (51.8° ± 3.9° and 50.9° ± 3.7°, respectively). The DHWA in Thoroughbreds was smaller than in Ponies (P<0.001). The mean heel angles (HA) for fore (40.1° ± 9.3°) and hind feet (36.4° ± 9.6°) were different (P<0.001). DHWA (P<0.001) and HA (P = 0.002) were larger in unshod than shod feet. In the hind feet the dorsal hoof wall was parallel to the dorsal aspect of the distal phalanx. The median angle of the distal phalanx to the horizontal (angle S) was 0.6° (interquartile range -1.4, 2.3). Angle S was positively correlated with the photographic HA and the radiographic hoof wall angle (angle W); each degree increase in the angle S was associated with 1.8° increase in the HA (P<0.001) and with 0.6° increase in the angle W (P<0.001). Main limitations: Feet were trimmed by a variety of farriers. Conclusions: Hindlimb angle S is smaller than published values for forelimbs. The orientation of the distal phalanx in hindlimbs is correlated with external characteristics of the hoof capsule. Ethical animal research: The study was approved by the Clinical Ethical Review Committee of the Animal Health Trust, AHT 36 2018. Informed consent: Explicit owner consent for inclusion in this study was not sought, but all owners consented to the use of all case information for scientific publication. Competing interests: None declared. Sources of funding: None.