Talk:Laminitis

Equine High‑importance

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.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

There isn't currently a section on prevention and considering the poor prognosis associated with chronic metabolic laminitis it may be prudent to include one? Preventative measures in horses include (1) exercise/minimising obesity: many horses in the UK are minimally exercised (<1hr day) and are fed too much for their level of work, (2) avoiding lush (cattle) pastures: horses' guts are designed to digest roughage and fibre in a trickle-feed manner, (3) avoiding feeding concentrates: see point 2, (4) care when using steroids: these can predispose to episodes of laminitis. Any other suggestions? (Chitori5 (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Feel free to add something, the whole article needs to be improved with good sources and that sort of thing, but in the meantime, something is better than nothing. See Easy keeper for more ideas, limiting non-structural carbohydrates in the diet (ie high sugar/starch grains like, well, all of them... and fresh grass high in fructan, etc...) Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently reads: "Alternative therapies such as acupuncture as well as herbal or homeopathic medicine may aid recovery but require expert veterinary input." I don't wish to comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of any alternative treatment, but I don't think many vets would feel comfortable recommending them, nor would many alternative medicine practitioners feel happy that they require the input of a vet to do their job. I would consider changing this to "Alternative therapies such as acupuncture as well as herbal or homeopathic medicine may aid recovery but an expert veterinary opinion should always be a pre-requisite." Any thoughts? Alsiola vet (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Getwood's opinion, he's also a vet. I'm OK with it personally, but I'm not a vet. I do know some vets willing to try this stuff under the "can't hurt, might help" view. Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of nudging the concepts apart a bit as Alsiola vet suggests. Personally, I am open to alternative therapies, but do not subscribe to the idea that all alternative therapies have no downside. I like the idea of the veterinarian being involved as a 'brake' for overly exuberant 'treatments.' Getwood (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. As a layperson, I lean toward the medical, but do not discount that there may be traditional or natural remedies that help some things, some times. So I like a discussion of the topic (I truly believe in

WP:V. Then brace for impact! LOL! (By the way, have you heard the one about Oil of Cinnamon as a treatment for insulin resistance in horses? Oh yeah, and I know someone who swears by Bach flower remedies...)  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 09:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually cinnamon can be used to lower blood sugar, but it is not recommended. I believe it does not lower insulin, and it can lower blood sugar too far. I can get citations for this. The moral is, never discount something you haven't researched. OTOH, don't accept something you haven't checked out at face value, either. Jlehman23 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, that's my point -- many possible remedies, some though not all based on research in humans, but very little actual research on use in horses. Oil of cinnamon being one, absolutely no testing has been done on horses. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see someone's monitoring this page. Cinnamon (spice, not oil) has been tried in horses, although I'm still checking to see whether there was a formal study. Was not determined to be beneficial. We mostly agree; I just would be careful about dissing a proposed treatment. We all know that even information widely accepted by the vet community can be wrong. Sometimes it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff - this article being an example. Jlehman23 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)A[reply]

As with all articles, the standard is just

WP:FRINGE elements that occasionally weigh in. Sigh...:-P Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

cit. added. Jlehman23 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there's some energy for article improvement by some editors. Great! For mainstream research, I would recommend The Horse online as a good place to look for recent research. Go to: http://www.thehorse.com It's a free registration site. The articles there are a good starting place, and when possible, they state the veterinary journals from which they were sourced, which is even better. Everyone remember the criteria of

The language used in this article, particularly at the beginning is stifling. Although those who are accustomed to academia may be comfortable with this style of writing, it is like wading through treacle for the rest of us. I think a simplification of the text would better convey the concepts involved to a wider audience. - Sam, Helsinki

This article has been a priority for cleanup for years, but no one has yet tackled it. Your point is well-taken, though. Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at a big cleanup - the start should be in a generally better shape - now it just needs someone to go through and check I've not left something in that is not true - I chopped out a lot of repetition, I think I left it in a coherent state, apologies if I stuck two sentences together anywhere they were not meant to belong. I made the article say roughly what I thought the original text was trying to convey. I do notice that there seems to be no coverage of cows - though apparently it's seen in cattle as well as horses ? EdwardLane (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer on the cattle thing; I've never seen it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ask Richard New Forest; he's our cattle expert. I can see the potential for working oxen to perhaps develop some form of road founder, perhaps; there are only so many ways a hoof can be attached to the inner structures of the foot.

found these [1][2] [3][4] as a reference sources for bovine laminitis.

They seem to suggest laminitis in cows is very similar to that in horses but also seem to suggest higher risk associated with pregnancy and with genetic predisposition. Not sure how that tallies up with finding in horses ? EdwardLane (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Herriot mentioned in his books that his partner considered bloodletting an efficient treatment, and even gave an example where it seemed to have worked in a very severe case. Does anyone use it today? Omeganian (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen bloodletting used by any vets I've observed in practice in the last five years. I don't think it is a common treatment for laminitis (Chitori5 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Found this picture while surfing on Commons, thought it might be useful. I'm not an expert on horse vet. medicine, but the moment I saw this picture my brain squealed "laminitis?!"... You be the judge if it's any use here. Pitke (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor little booger! Probably road founder by the looks of the rig, critter isn't really overweight. I think that captioned to indicate that the stance APPEARS to be that of a horse with laminitis, as we don't have a definitive diagnoses, it could be used, though not as the lead. (The X-Ray as lead works well for that purpose) Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several pictures supposedly showing laminitis, but I think what would most help would be a comparison photo of a healthy horse foot. That way the differences will stand out, as opposed to having to guess what isn't where it is supposed to be.128.157.160.13 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - photo of cross section of hoof 'not showing laminitis' would be good, there was no mention of laminitis with this cross section - is it good/accurate ? EdwardLane (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say this. Surprised one hasn’t been put up over the past ten years! Thriley (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section on the Genetic predisposition to Laminitis ? Does it run in families - or are particular breeds more (or less) succeptible. I seem to recall that 'native breeds' and other 'good doers' are more prone to Carbohydrate overload. Are other breeds more succeptible to Nitrogen compound overload

Well ok I now see some of this is covered in the Insulin resistant section - which sounds a lot like type 2 diabetes so I wondered (in my ignorance) whether there had been any research connecting laminitis and diabetes and perhaps even considering comparisons with Diabetic_foot_ulcer ? I see this [5] which briefly says yes some stuff in common. This says Laminitis has a lot in common with diabetes but the foot aspects are different [6]

This in depth paper shows that laminitis can be induced by prolonged high insulin levels in normal ponies [7]

And this also looks interesting [8] Looks like there should be a section on that too.

EdwardLane (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best USA sources on recent research, particularly the link to inflammation response and metabolic stuff, is The Horse (free login required) which has gobs and gobs of articles. http://www.thehorse.com And yes, there is a link to metabolic disorder and the parallel condition in humans, but not well studied. Some breeds that are "easy keepers" are more prone to laminitis, the genetic link is kind of tricky, though, as, like diabetes, there are also some tremendous environmental factors also at work, so hard to sort out if we really want to make hardy, tough horse breeds into hard keepers! And yes, they can deliberately induce laminitis in labratory conditions for the purpose of study. I've also had to keep/treat three laminitic horses over the years, and have much to comment on the matter. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool all that info ought to make it into wikipedia in a coherent form, but that's probably beyond my ability here. I did spot this

Anti-diabetic_medication#Sensitizers which looked interesting - but noticed further down the page that juniper was mentioned - and I pretty sure that's toxic for horses, but also alfalfa was apparently shown to have beneficial effects in mice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLane (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

ah that info about alfalfa seems to have been editted out of the article I just pointed at here's the diff [9] that contains the info at the bottom left - some of that seems significant so not to be lost? EdwardLane (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked up a rumour I heard about Dew and Laminitis This [10] seems to suggest something slightly different times when there is most fructan in the grass - to the bit I see in the article about frosted grass?

EdwardLane (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full scoop on fructan is at http://www.safergrass.org/ They are a little fanatical, but the science is actually pretty sound. I suggest using this site, at least as a gateway to the underlying science. After you read it, you will be terrified to put a horse on grass, but oh well... (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was the usual reason you use a toclimit. The table had gotten pretty large and I thought a limit of 3 was detailed enough. I take it the reverting editor disagrees. -- Fyrefly (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the table of content doesn't look out of control to me - not yet anyway, given the length/complexity of the article - but it probably is close to the limit. I think that is probably more a reflection on the need to rationalise the article - which it seems would be better than adding an arbitrary limit. EdwardLane (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it puzzled me too, we have many WP articles with far more extensive TOC than this one. The article needs some overall work, but that's a different problem. Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, a TOC that takes up an entire screen (depending on your resolution) is a bit too long and got into more detail than it needed to anyway. It's really not that important to me though. -- Fyrefly (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entire screen? On what? A cell phone? (grin) This TOC takes up a few inches on my screen (which is on a modest laptop!) The TOC allows people to navigate through the article, it's the only indexing possible. This is a relatively modest TOC by the standards of the more comprehensive articles. Have you seen New York City? Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something is displaying differently for me than for you Montanabw - I'm getting slightly more than a 17inch screen full TOC for this article - and slightly less than that for the New York City article. Perhaps someone tidied Newyorkcity? Perhaps it's a viewer config option? A screen full of TOC is about the limit of what I want from an article - I read the lead section then scan the TOC to jump to bits I'm more interested in. I don't want to have to scroll down the TOC that generally means the article is too big and should get split up or reorganised. At least thats how I think about it. This article does need that reorganisation the artifical cap on the TOC might be a decent stopgap solution EdwardLane (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...you're definitely doing something wrong there Montana. For one thing, New York article has a smaller TOC than this one. Also, with a completely normal sized display, this article's TOC is more than a screen length. Do you think we're talking about the infobox or something? -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the TOC needs to be fixed by editing the article, not by an arbitrary limit on entries in the TOC. This is a complex topic that requires strong navigabiliy. I can see one easy tweak right off the bat and will make that one happen. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now - good job Montanabw :) EdwardLane (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, always better to just cure the underlying problem than whine about the symptoms. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just really don't know how to act maturely. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice the two of you - this was a good if difficult collaboration, Fyrefly did a good job by persistantly pointing out/prodding at a 'sore spot' in the wikipedia animal, and Montanabw managed a way to avoid needing to use the painkillers fyrefly suggested, by fixing the underlying problem. Wikipedia animal is now slightly healthier thanks to the two of you. EdwardLane (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending more MEDRS sources, this is a very good overview of current (2013) research on laminitis, from, of all places, the New York Times: http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/progess-made-on-laminitis-but-still-much-left-to-do/ Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laminitis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124120909/http://www.horseshoes.com/farrierssites/sites/rooney/nonclassicallaminitis/nonclassicallaminitis.htm to http://www.horseshoes.com/farrierssites/sites/rooney/nonclassicallaminitis/nonclassicallaminitis.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610072332/http://picasaweb.google.com/jandrinkwater/LucyFounder to http://picasaweb.google.com/jandrinkwater/LucyFounder
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710143127/http://www.dodsonandhorrell.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Laminitis_Leaflet_2010.pdf to http://www.dodsonandhorrell.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Laminitis_Leaflet_2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this article and noticed the striking similarity in the section regarding matrix metalloproteinases and the article on recurrent corneal erosion in humans. Ophthalmologists are now using low doses of oral tetracycline derivatives (such as doxycycline) to treat recalcitrant RCE as the drug reduces MMP activity. Has this ever been investigated in horses as a treatment for laminitis? Captain Packrat (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]