2.3. Locomotor and Bladder Function Locomotion scores in all dogs gradually increased with the treatment, as evaluated using the Olby locomotion scale (Figure 3). After the treatment and during the six months follow-up period all dogs improved in all evaluated parameters (locomotion scales, urinary bladder function, and goniometric measurements). Olby score 14 12- 10- before T Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5129 1M after T /////////////////// 3M after T Evaluating period 6M after T Dog Z Dog B Dog M Dog T Figure 3. Locomotor function evaluated using Olby scale. The figure shows the Olby scores assessed in every dog during the study period. Values were obtained before therapy, then one, three and six months after therapy in each dog. Each measurement represents mean value of three measurements. 5 of 21 The gait ability and locomotion scores are expressed in Figure 3. Dog Z improved from 0 to 9. At the beginning of the study the dog was unable to walk at all, there was no pelvic limb movement and no deep pain sensation in the hind limbs. Six months after the treatment the dog was weight-bearing with reduced strength in the pelvic limbs. Failures such as crossing and scuffing the legs were visible more than 90% of the time. Dog M improved from 5 to 9, meaning from non-weight-bearing protraction of the pelvic limbs to weight-bearing protraction with more than 90% failures. Dog B improved from 9 to 13, which means improvement from more than 90% failures during walking to ataxic pelvic limb gait with normal strength and with failures such as incoordination and bunny-hopping visible less than 50% of the time. Dog T improved from 4 to 12, from non-weight-bearing protraction of the pelvic limbs with visible movement in more than one joint less than 50% of the time to ataxic gait with normal muscle strength and failures visible more than 50% of the time. In the two dogs with urinary retention, unable to spontaneously urinate, we reported mild improvement in urination ability. Both dogs had score 0 prior to the treatment. We used a urinary function score designed for the purposes of this study. Dog Z became easy to express and achieved the score 1. The Dog M gained score 2.
2.3. Locomotor and Bladder Function Locomotion scores in all dogs gradually increased with the treatment, as evaluated using the Olby locomotion scale (Figure 3). After the treatment and during the six months follow-up period all dogs improved in all evaluated parameters (locomotion scales, urinary bladder function, and goniometric measurements). Olby score 14 12- 10- before T Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5129 1M after T /////////////////// 3M after T Evaluating period 6M after T Dog Z Dog B Dog M Dog T Figure 3. Locomotor function evaluated using Olby scale. The figure shows the Olby scores assessed in every dog during the study period. Values were obtained before therapy, then one, three and six months after therapy in each dog. Each measurement represents mean value of three measurements. 5 of 21 The gait ability and locomotion scores are expressed in Figure 3. Dog Z improved from 0 to 9. At the beginning of the study the dog was unable to walk at all, there was no pelvic limb movement and no deep pain sensation in the hind limbs. Six months after the treatment the dog was weight-bearing with reduced strength in the pelvic limbs. Failures such as crossing and scuffing the legs were visible more than 90% of the time. Dog M improved from 5 to 9, meaning from non-weight-bearing protraction of the pelvic limbs to weight-bearing protraction with more than 90% failures. Dog B improved from 9 to 13, which means improvement from more than 90% failures during walking to ataxic pelvic limb gait with normal strength and with failures such as incoordination and bunny-hopping visible less than 50% of the time. Dog T improved from 4 to 12, from non-weight-bearing protraction of the pelvic limbs with visible movement in more than one joint less than 50% of the time to ataxic gait with normal muscle strength and failures visible more than 50% of the time. In the two dogs with urinary retention, unable to spontaneously urinate, we reported mild improvement in urination ability. Both dogs had score 0 prior to the treatment. We used a urinary function score designed for the purposes of this study. Dog Z became easy to express and achieved the score 1. The Dog M gained score 2.
Oh no! Our experts couldn't answer your question.
Don't worry! We won't leave you hanging. Plus, we're giving you back one question for the inconvenience.
Submit your question and receive a step-by-step explanation from our experts in as fast as 30 minutes.
You have no more questions left.
Message from our expert:
Writing assignments don't fall within the 30+ subjects covered in Ask an Expert. For writing help, please visit bartleby write. We've credited a question to your account.
Your Question:
explain this result in a brief and clear way, Here is the link where the image came from: https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/ijms/ijms-21-05129/article_deploy/ijms-21-05129.pdf?version=1595262192
Transcribed Image Text:2.3. Locomotor and Bladder Function
Locomotion scores in all dogs gradually increased with the treatment, as evaluated using
the Olby locomotion scale (Figure 3). After the treatment and during the six months follow-up
period all dogs improved in all evaluated parameters (locomotion scales, urinary bladder function,
and goniometric measurements).
Olby score
14
12-
10-
before T
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5129
1M after T
///////////////////
3M after T
Evaluating period
6M after T
Dog Z
Dog B
Dog M
Dog T
Figure 3. Locomotor function evaluated using Olby scale. The figure shows the Olby scores assessed
in every dog during the study period. Values were obtained before therapy, then one, three and six
months after therapy in each dog. Each measurement represents mean value of three measurements.
5 of 21
The gait ability and locomotion scores are expressed in Figure 3. Dog Z improved from 0 to 9.
At the beginning of the study the dog was unable to walk at all, there was no pelvic limb movement and
no deep pain sensation in the hind limbs. Six months after the treatment the dog was weight-bearing
with reduced strength in the pelvic limbs. Failures such as crossing and scuffing the legs were visible
more than 90% of the time. Dog M improved from 5 to 9, meaning from non-weight-bearing protraction
of the pelvic limbs to weight-bearing protraction with more than 90% failures. Dog B improved from 9
to 13, which means improvement from more than 90% failures during walking to ataxic pelvic limb
gait with normal strength and with failures such as incoordination and bunny-hopping visible less
than 50% of the time. Dog T improved from 4 to 12, from non-weight-bearing protraction of the pelvic
limbs with visible movement in more than one joint less than 50% of the time to ataxic gait with normal
muscle strength and failures visible more than 50% of the time.
In the two dogs with urinary retention, unable to spontaneously urinate, we reported mild
improvement in urination ability. Both dogs had score 0 prior to the treatment. We used a urinary
function score designed for the purposes of this study. Dog Z became easy to express and achieved the
score 1. The Dog M gained score 2.
