Talk:Navicular Disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Equine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine.

This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Here is a different opinion about Navicular Disease

For a view of Navicular Disease that is different from both the barefoot movement and the traditional veterinary/farrier approach, please go to http://www.horseperspective.com/navicular.html.Equinewellness 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This link does bring up an important point about the body's ability to adapt, and our general inferiority in comparison to mother nature when it comes to really knowing what is right and wrong about a foot's balance. However, the article also speaks of "assumptions" about "certain changes in the navicular area" which have not been shown to be true. This is an unfortunate statement not based on any science: degeneration of the navicular bone is a very real thing, and a very real cause of lameness. It is true that over the years many cases of foot-related lameness were lumped, improperly, into the navicular disease category. With more advanced imaging techniques, many soft tissue injuries have been identified as causes of heel pain. These imaging techniques are also very good at identifying specific lesions within the navicular bone itself.--Getwood (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is gallium nitrate is not mentioned?

I have found that gallium nitrate is very effective in treating navicular disease and arthritis in horses, but it is not approved and is so cheap that it will never be approved. See http://george-eby-research.com/html/nav.html for more information. Eby says navicular disease is an arthitis of the navicular joint, and that gallium has been shown effective as an anti-arthritis agent.

Gallium nitrate should be added as early studies of its use have shown some reversal of certain navicular symptoms. --AeronM (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider barefoot horse approach

I found some very interesting news about both navicular and laminitis in works from the barefoot horse movement (as an example, http://www.hoofrehab.com and http://www.barefoothorse.com ). See also the new articles barefoot horses and Jaime Jackson

I'm going to translate this article into Italian and I'll add some mention to barefoot point of view in Italian version.

To the authors: can you review your English page? --Alex brollo 04:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I will add some of the research that shows horses suffering from navicular can be managed (and in some cases, successfully reversed) when certain kinds of barefoot trimming therapies are used. --AeronM (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, please, not the "barefoot movement" again. That was the big edit spat (that I was NOT involved in) from over a year ago. All the various horse hoof articles got drug into it, the farriers were snarking at the barefooters, oh dear. Oh let's NOT crank that up all over again? Sincerely: How about checking out barefoot horses first and seeing if there is a section on it there. If, not, add one, that would fit there without too many people being upset. Then maybe put in a real brief section here, saying that the barefoot movement has a treatment approach, and wikilinking to that article. That would be a better way to handle this. (Trust me, vets and farriers surf these pages for POV on this issue. It's another one that gets people VERY upset.) Also, be sure to source claims of "cures" extremely carefully -- Navicular is very complicated, and there is more than one type of change now grouped under the heading "navicular." Been much new research, some in the past year, look up studies in TheHorse.com, lots of news out there. I say this as someone who rarely shoes my horses, OK? Sincerely begging you to take this to the appropriate page. Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, you will have to make room here for all the points of view, not just your own. Therapies which are shown to be helpful to navicular horses belong on this page. More detailed discussion of barefoot trimming can go on the barefoot page. --AeronM (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, I have scarcely ever even edited this particular page. Your ad hominem attack is completely unwarranted in this situation. I have seen that you have spread your sweetness and goodwill to things other than the horse articles and a pattern is coming clear to me. This is not my POV on navicular disease; I have never owned a horse with it and I have interests in other types of lameness. The POV here is that of the mainstream veterinary profession, as I can best understand it, not having a DVM myself. Indeed, I most kindly and respecfully beg you to take your own advice and realize that your POV is not the only one out there. Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where is the ad hominem attack? --AeronM (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As it sits at the moment, it isn't too bad. I only tagged one section. The "research" is a little iffy, but what you have later on does keep the shoeing perspective too, without deletions, so I can live with it. Montanabw(talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV added

From many months I added a remark into the talk page; there is an encreasing evidence that new opinions about navicular disease and its treatment need some mention. My English is rather poor; I tried to write an article "Horse hoof" but I see that the result is far from good... Please take a look to new opinions about navicular, following the links I mentioned in my first talk post (first to Pete Ramey article about navicular and links page of his website). Very different from anything in present wiki article! I think, no NPOV is possible, without a mention of those new ideas. And in my opinion, I can't merely add a link without a mention of its content inside the article!--Alex brollo 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the NPOV tag. Though the article needs sourcing and proper references (to say nothing of proper formatting and major wordsmithing), it is pretty much the standard info on navicular, no real POV problem (other than, perhaps, to those with a POV, I suppose). Montanabw 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

This article would benefit from some photos showing the hoof, and maybe a radiographic xray showing the navicular bone. --AeronM (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you can find one that's OK with the wiki gods, go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More POV tags?

montanabw, the section you tagged, um, three times (can you say 'overkill??') about how the hoof works is actually common knowledge, not a POV. It's called the "tourniquet effect" and it is well-documented. I can supply a hundred verifiable references to support this, but I would have thought you knew enough about horse physiology already. There are many useful books and websites which can teach you how the hoof works. Meanwhile, I am removing tag. If you can find a reference that says a hoof does not work the way it works, I'd like to see it! Meanwhile, to get your education started, here is part of the article I used as my reference. (Did you even read the reference? Or just start slapping tags everywhere?):

When the shoe is applied, it does not allow the hoof to flex. This causes decreased blood flow into and out of the hoof, depriving nerves of blood supply thereby resulting in the hoof becoming numb. The shoe is usually made of steel, it is very inflexible, and is solidly fixated to the hoof. The vessels that supply the hoof with blood are also compressed decreasing the efficient blood flow into and out of the hoof. The limited blood flow causes waste products to build up in the hoof, minimizing nutrients and oxygen from entering, which in turn, causes decreased cellular metabolism and tissue growth.
In addition, as described above, the horses hooves cannot contribute to general circulation when they are restricted by horseshoes and confinement.
This tourniquet effect of horseshoes was dramatically demonstrated in a video produced in 1993 by Dr. Chris Pollitt Phd DVSc MSC of the Department of Companion Animal Medicine and Science, University of Queensland Brisbane Australia . This investigator using freshly prepared cadaever horse hooves compared shod and nonshod specimens measuring blood flow. The application of shoes resulted in a visible dramatic reduction in blood flow and alteration in the physiology of the horse's hoof. Despite the obvious implications of this work, it has not affected the veterinary or farrier practices within the horse community significantly.

Hope this is helpful. --AeronM (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored the tag because the tone of your edit implies that shoes inherently, by their very use, "cause" navicular. You take a statement about how shoes limit flexibility (which is true), and stretch it to say that, therefore, shoes cause navicular. Which is not. And your citation is to a well-known POV-pushing barefooter site that has minimal credibility within the mainstream community. The section can be repaired, which is why I tagged it instead of deleting or reverting it.
If you want to add a citation directly to the actual peer-reviewed study in 1993, that would be a better way to verify your claim. If there are "hundreds" of studies that say shoeing (or bad shoeing) can "cause" navicular, then there should be no problem with you using Google Scholar or Pub Med (ask Una to help, she knows how to use them) to find at least two or three. To say a section's neutrality is disputed is just that; to say it's neutrality is disputed. Nothing personal, just is. Improve the section with cites to the actual veterinary research instead of a generalized "research" statement from a known-iffy source, and then the tag can go away, particularly if there is a sentence or two tossed in that explains the other side -- why every shod horse does not develop navicular. Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Montanabw, your statement that shoes can not cause navicular is not supported by current research. It is your POV, and an erroneous one. And I am not trying to verify MY claim, as I am not the one claiming that shoes can cause navicular. I did not say shoes always cause navicular, just that they can, and have. This is common knowledge among horse people, and I am happy to provide you with more sources if that would help you. PS It is amusing how every website that offers a viewpoint that is different from your own is a "POV-pushing website." It is a well-known website, yes. It is a well-respected website, yes. But as soon as it condradicts your limited ideas about horses, suddenly it is POV-pushing. --AeronM (talk)

Okay, I have added MORE refs. Is this sufficient, montanabw? Or are these ALL POV-pushing fringe theorists?? --AeronM (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Chris Pollitt, in his 1995 book Color Atlas of the Horse's Foot, does not mention his own "dramatic" demonstration. His recommendation for navicular disease in this book is to use egg bar shoes and to neutralize the hoof pastern axis. The 'reference' of someone's opinion on a webpage is a bit weak, particularly when the author claims that the study, (which was performed on cadaver limbs), causes numbness in the foot. Horses with navicular disease are anything but numb. I don't disagree that shoes alter blood flow. But I believe that improperly trimmed feet prior to shoeing are more often to blame than the shoes themselves most times.--Getwood (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Yes, up until recently, that was the common thinking. We know a lot more about navicular now, for example, the numbness is now pretty universally accepted. It's logical really, if you think about what happens when the blood flow is restricted in the human body... like when your leg falls asleep... there is numbness, and then as the blood starts to go back in, there is sometimes pain or pricklies... same thing happens in the horse, although with shoes on all the time, they don't have the benefit of the blood being allowed back into the foot... that's when the real trouble begins.....There are lots and lots of sites you can look this up on.... I have listed a few, but there are plenty. There's actually international panel of experts over at my mother's house right now.... I'm going over to eavesdrop and hear what's new in Europe on shoeing......--AeronM (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The numbness is not universally accepted, and has never been proven in any scientific way. The international panels of experts whose journal articles and book chapters I read and that I hear talk about navicular disease do not mention your theoretical answer. It's logical, really, to understand that the foot is not numb, since the horse limps, and since a diagnostic nerve block relieves pain arising from this area. Furthermore, a restriction in bloodflow does not explain the increase in size of vascular channels which is one of the hallmarks of classic navicular disease. They increase in size because of an increase in bloodflow. But, please, let me know what websites the international panel of experts recommends next as 'proof' of these theories, and explanations for my naive misunderstandings.--Getwood (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave it for now because I simply am tired of constantly arguing with you. I never said that shoes "cannot" cause navicular, in fact I suggested that poor shoeing may be a contributing factor. I don't have time to further research this particular question, given how much else I have to do at the moment. Please don't distort what I say and don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of POV-pushing. Disagreements are not POV-pushing, there is room for rational, reasoned debate. We'll see how this article shakes out in a few weeks and if anyone else weighs in. Montanabw(talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If you agree that shoes can be a contributing factor in navicular, (which is what my contribution said in the first place), then why all the POV tags? And why this argument? Why is it so hard for you to concede a point without attacking the other person? You keep making this personal, montanabw, and it is not. --AeronM (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Aeron, I am most certainly not making this personal. Never have, I am just dedicated to accurate, balanced information. There is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon between saying that poor shoeing might be a contributing factor and saying that horseshoes "cause" navicular. (If bad shoeing caused navicular, then a lot more horses would have it and some breeds seem to be practically immune, no matter how poor their care is). But I will agree that at the moment, the article does not currently say shoes "cause" navicular. But I haven't had time to check the sites you put in, and frankly, given that I have other fish to fry, probably won't for a while. So for now, it can sit. Don't be offended by POV and fact tags, they used to raise my blood pressure too. It's just par for the course. Montanabw(talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I did not say shoes cause navicular. I said shoes CAN cause navicular. You agreed with that statement above. So what is the problem here? And before you summarily dismiss what I have said (even though you have agreed with it), why don't you take the two minutes to actually read the sourced material, before you jump all over me, ok? --AeronM (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility, people. No more comments about the other contributors, let's focus on the editorial content of the article and stop sniping at each other. We're all trying to make the articles better. Dreadstar † 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, Mntanabw, I made some changes which I hope could allow us to resolve the npov issue. See what you think. Thanks. Oh, and Curtis C, I appreciate your work to clarify; your changes to my text were all improvements. I hope these spirited discussions have spurred as much reading for all of you as they have for me. Dreadstar, thank you for helping to mediate...--Getwood (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shoeing

Shoes sometimes do seem like they are helping to relieve pressure/pain, but sometimes these effects are only temporary. Happy to source this if need be. --AeronM (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Shoes can help to relieve pain. Not always, but they can. Even long-term. I love the way you say "seem like they are helping..." This is why you were questioned in the first place about bias. I agree that shoes sometimes relieve pain only temporarily, but the same applies for trimming. So, if your statement stays, so will mine. Happy to source this if need be. --Getwood (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this isn't a game of "you said your piece, so I get to say mine." You must back up your contributions with sources, as I have done. Thank you. -AeronM (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

"Some speculate" and "it is claimed" are weasel words (phrases). --AeronM (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"It is claimed" is short for "It is claimed by the reference". Independent of which "side" of the "controversy" the reference is on, it is a claim; no solid evidence is presented beyond the anecdotal (I did read the whole thing, but in a hurry, so I might have missed something). It seems to me at this point that we have claims that shoeing can cause or exacerbate navicular disease, and claims that it doesn't and can be used to treat it. NPOV consists of mentioning all these as claims. If there were a reference to a controlled study, or even a meta-analysis of a number of cases, that weighed in on one side or the other, that would be more than a claim. But at this point, "claim" seems to be an accurate reflection of at least the references I've read.
I object to "some speculate" because of the "some"; it implies an imprecise number of entities, when in fact there is a single reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you say, provided "claimed" is used equally for both sides of the issue. The only time I have a problem with "claimed" is when a contribution says 'one side says this, and the other side claims that,' which sounds uneven. Just want to be sure the terminology isn't subtly supporting one view or the other. --AeronM (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree totally about "claimed" in that context. Of course, the best is to be able to say "showed, as evidenced by...", and there's not a lot of that going around.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please hang on

I just made a change to that section, but I realized it still doesn't convey what I'm trying to get at. I need to go back and re-read the reference more closely, and then I'll give it another try. Please wait for my next attempt before editing it further.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's my issue with the reference (and please note that it is not a unique issue; this just happens to be the reference I an dealing with now): it makes statements, but gives no basis other than "appeal to authority" to evaluate them. It is stated that shoeing reduces blood flow, and reference is made to a study that shows that, but then it goes on to say that reduced blood flow causes numbness, but provides no direct evidence, even though it seems that it should be a simple thing to evaluate. It makes the analogy of people sleeping on their arms, but that's a complex phenomenon involving pressure on the radial nerve and reduced blood flow to the radial nerve as well as to the skin of the extremities (which is where most of the numbness is perceived, even though it doesn't originate there). And of course people are not horses.
What I had hoped to write was something along the lines of "so-and-so observed numbness in the hooves of x number of horses, and attributed it to shoeing, since it abated in those horses that had their shoes removed." But no such luck. I was a scientist before I became a bad actor, and I'm used to weighing evidence, but I don't see the evidence here that I'm looking for. Please note that other references on any side of this issue may have the same problems; this is just the one I happened to look at in detail.
I'll give the wording another try.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I appreciate your efforts here, CC. I will see if I can rustle up anything as well. --AeronM (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Research tip

Note to all: You may want to search for articles at The Horse. This the flagship mainstream publication for the American Association of Equine Practitioners, has all its articles online for free if you login. They have a number of articles discussing the most recent studies on navicular. (And everything else) Unbelievble databank of info. Best of all, once you find one, they have a good cross-linking of related articles. I also have to point out that, as the first paragraph of the article says, there are multiple conditions grouped under the heading "navicular," and this is an area of study in a lot of flux, so my suggestion to all is to footnote very carefully. I'm not participating on this one much because I have other fish to fry, but seeing as how there appears to be cooperation here, and that is GOOD, I wanted to mention some sources that I hope would be pretty NPOV in anyone's book. AAEP is about as mainstream as you can get. Montanabw(talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that info... you are right, too, about the term "navicular" encompassing many different hoof probs..... so we need to be careful. --AeronM (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assorted edits, comment

Overall I am real pleased with the direction this article is going (and that I have been able to stay out of it!). I think that the section on how shoeing may or may not "cause" navicular may need a little more of the nice terminology used in some other spots, saying "this specific groups says X, but this specific group says Y" phrasing rather than "research says..." to get the POV tag to go away, but other than that, it's proceeding apace. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also pleased. AeronM, I am glad that we are able to craft this together in a way that lets both sides be heard. Your "one study" addition was absolutely appropriate. While I personally disagree about the numbness issue, I think that it does belong in the article. I won't complain about the mismatch between "several hoof experts" and one citation, because I know that there are many who do feel strongly about it. Could I suggest changing "several hoof experts" to "barefoot trimming experts" or "barefoot trimming advocates" or something like that? This would lay the cards on the table, answering Montanabw's "this specific group says X..." request. It would also effectively show that the belief is held by not only one person, but without the need to use several citations. On that note, it seems to me that we could clean up the references section. I don't mean eliminate, but consolidate. The Equine nutrition page uses a system that seems much cleaner. When the same reference is needed multiple times, it does't appear over and over in the list. Montanabw, I think this may be an area where you could advise?--Getwood (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrt "several hoof experts", I'd be happy with anything that accurately reflected what appears to be a single reference published by a foundation with no author attribution.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. While I'm gathering some sources for the numbing issue, check out this excellent article by Pete Ramey (one of the leading hoofcare experts in the US) if you haven't already: it's here then scroll down to "Digging For The Truth About Navicular Syndrome." --AeronM (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's another great article. I love the part about the 'big, mean cops had tears in their eyes' when the horse got better. --AeronM (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's another site, and here's another one, in addition to the one referenced in the article, that mentions numbing in the hoof from shoes. Not that I'm trying to change your mind, Getwood (!), just illustrating that it is more than one person who thinks this.... --AeronM (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from one site: "In addition, and as a result of, the previously described macro vascular alterations, shoes anesthetize the hooves by affecting the micro vascular blood flow. The shoe does not allow the hoof to flex which causes limited, inefficient blood supply to the hoof. This limited blood supply does not allow ATP (Adenosine Tri Phosphate) to enter the neural cells within the hoof causing the nerve cells to not be able to fire. When the nerve cells cannot to fire, the hoof becomes numb. This scenario is like when a human sleeps on their arm and they wake up not being able to feel it because the blood flow has been greatly decreased by pressure from the body weight lying on it." --AeronM (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, can we revert back to "several hoof experts" now? Or would you like more refs? --AeronM (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, just trying to weign in as an NPOV here, I suggest that when you are making statements about theories that are in dispute between various practitioners, using neutral but descriptive terminology such as "barefoot trimming researchers" or "the American college of farriers," or "Veterinarians at the University of XYZ." This allows the reader to assess the material for themselves. "Several hoof experts" is pretty fuzzy. I mean, define "expert." PhD in exercise physiology? Farrier with 40 years experience? Licensed vet? Joe Schmo with a theory that he will tell you about if you order his $19.95 DVD? (grin) Also, "several" has no inherent meaning; four or five people can be "several" in my book, but is it five out of ten or five out of a hundred? You see the problem. IMHO, Clarity and footnoting settles many a problem. (If you ever want to dip a toe into the world of minutae in citation, try any military history article! gaah! Those folks are so picky it's scary!) Montanabw(talk) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
AeronM- The Ramey article makes no mention of numbness, but emphasizes the toe first theory. The hoofrehab article covers the same Ramey/Bowker/Rooney story as the Ramey article, again with no mention of numbness. In fact, these theories state that "Dr. Rooney proved and published that it was actually the unnatural toe first movement (usually caused by avoiding heel pain) that causes navicular remodeling." The third reference, the Drabek site, explains how numbness has been "proven to me time and time again" but gives as its only explanation the fact that horses are lamer barefoot than shod. Hmmm. The fourth quotes your currently used heal the hoof reference. Not just parallel, but verbatim. What you quote above is what we've already read. None of these proves numbness. And none even hint at any study in any concrete way that does. The only study that it cites is the Pollitt study. I will agree that the limbs in his study were numb, but only because they were disarticulated cadaver limbs. Can we just go with the "Barefoot trimming experts say X" line? No one disputes the absolute fact that barefoot experts say that feet are numb when shod.--Getwood (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Barefoot trimming experts" is fine. Just wanted to let readers know a) it was more than one person who mentioned the numbness, and b) that the people who do mention it are experts in their fields. BTW, all my cited references do mention numbness. You have to read the whole article. --AeronM (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per consensus, am changing to "barefoot trimming experts." -AeronM (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct link

The b2b website link no longer seems to work. AeronM, can you double check that I didn't change something when I consolidated? Google brings up the archived page, but even the main page seems dead. Thanks,--Getwood (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You must have fixed it cuz I just checked it and it works.  : ) --AeronM (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)