# Navicular in Jumping Horses



## Bandera (Jul 31, 2010)

I bought my new horse in last May (may 8th) and i did a vet check at Uc Davis and she was clean, the only thing they were kind of worried about was side bone because of her age ( 6 years old). I know when i bought her she was jumping about 3'6 'soundly' a month or two later she had some hind end issues so we injected the hocks and she was fine. Then i switched trainers and my new one wanted the vet to look at her front end. He found navicular changes in the front left, (BY LOOKING AT THE SAME X-RAYS DAVIS DID!!!!) she was slightly off on that foot. He injected the coffin bone and he came back to look at her 4-5months later yesterday and he was very impressed with how well she was doing. He wanted to continue the treatment of her foot and injected it again. Lameness wise she isnt really super off, davis didnt even really notice it!!!! She has been jumping 3'6 in this condition before treatment and they thought she was fine too! I havent jumped in her in about 4 months because she has been in dressage training but the vet said i could start jumping her again. The upsetting thing is this was my prelim prospect horse or 4foot jumpers horse. She has the movement, scope, breeding, conformation, and brain to do it, but i dont know if she has the body to hold up to it????? What do you guys think? Do you think there is any hope for her going prelim or more eventually??? Should i sell her and start again?? Should i breed her and get a nice foal out of her???? WHY DIDNT DAVIS SEEEEEEE THISSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know they cant for see lameness but this vet looked at the same x-rays davis did and he saw navicular! Besides injecting the coffin bone is there anything else we can dp???? Sorry this is so long i am just really freaking out here!!!!


----------



## Bandera (Jul 31, 2010)

bump! please help!


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

I am sorry you are experiencing this, but I would like to suggest that every horse does not meet our own goals. 

Your horse could jump the course you put in front of him, but is it fair to ask that?

If I were you, I would sell or free lease. I know this is not what you want to hear, so I am sorry.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Hi,

If competition in the near future is your biggest concern, then I don't think she sounds a good prospect. But if you're willing to keep her & give her the time & effort required, there's a very good chance, esp with her age, that with the right management, it will pay off.... especially for her.

It seems that different people see 'navicular changes' in different ways & there seems no hard & fast diagnosis, as there is often little understanding of the processes at work. I for eg. would take ossified lateral cartilages('side bone') as one sign. It is a condition that IMO effects the whole caudal hoof, not just the navicular region. As the digital cushion doesn't begin to develop as an effective shock absorber until around 4-5 years old(and growth plates in the spine haven't 'closed' by then anyway), I would not want to be jumping horses at all until at least this age. 

There are a number of different 'treatments' for 'navicular', including injecting, pads, wedges, etc, but most such as these are purely palliative and also temporary - they don't treat the problems, only the symptoms. I suggest you check out Dr Robert Bowker's research and his website is coronavistaequinecenter.com Also another source of info on how you can help her is hoofrehab.com


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Paragraphs are your friend.


I am guessing it is less a case of UC Davis not seeing something as your current vet interpreting something differently than how UC Davis did.

Your first clue might have been that you were buying a 6yo who was already campaigning at 3'6". It sounds like this horse has done quite a bit in its short life.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Alwaysbehind said:


> Paragraphs are your friend.


:lol::lol:Just had to say, that comment made me giggle! Must remember it!


----------



## bntnail (Feb 3, 2011)

OP,
I've seen horses w/ nav changes go on to light work while being barefoot w/ proper trimming. As for jumping, the prognosis isn't so good though they can be kept going (for a while) w/ proper shoeing and usually injections.


----------



## jess93 (Oct 14, 2010)

I wouldnt breed her as nivacular is passed on to yougstock hence why theese young horses get its not from jumping big tracks young and it only gets worse best option would be to sell her and start again. I have seen horses get slowly worse from nivacular and it is defantly not nice in the slitest the diese slowly eats away at the nivacular done until it is almost none exestint causing horses a lot of pain 

exucse my spelling
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

jess93 said:


> I wouldnt breed her as nivacular is passed on to yougstock hence why theese young horses get its not from jumping big tracks young and it only gets worse best option would be to sell her and start again. I have seen horses get slowly worse from nivacular and it is defantly not nice in the slitest the diese slowly eats away at the nivacular done until it is almost none exestint causing horses a lot of pain
> 
> exucse my spelling
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Spelling is excused, but not your assumptions! Just being cheeky there, but would like to give my perspective on some of what you've said... Firstly, remember even for those that have studied this problem in depth, there are still a few unanswered questions about it, and there are also many incorrect or dubious assumptions abounding still. So IMO we have to be careful about being too definite & closed about what we 'know' about it.

Genetic factors; of course genetics plays a part in everything, and some breeds - such as heavies & arabs for eg do tend to innately have stronger caudal hooves than other breeds, according to research done(not sure how widespread that study...). There are also some unfortunate lines of horses, such as some QHs who have been bred to have extra small feet for eg, who tend to be innately problematic - should not be allowed to breed IMO. 

BUT generally speaking, the evidence seems to have mounted far & away in favour of environment(eg. management, footing, hoofcare, work, etc) being by far the biggest 'cause' of strong or weak hooves, particularly in the caudal region. Dr Robert Bowker of University of Michigan is one person who has done a lot of research in this area and you can actually read the basics in a paper you'll find online titled "Contrasting Structural Morphologies of 'Good' and 'Bad' Footed Horses"

....So above explains 'hence' why young horses DO INDEED develop problems such as this from jumping or galloping young. One more interesting point that seems to be rather recently gleaned is that even healthy, well conditioned(such as mustangs for eg) horses don't BEGIN to develop caudal hoof strength(the fatty tissue of the digital cushion doesn't start to become fibrous cartilage) until the horse is around 4-5 years old!

There are many environmental factors which influence this development and unfortunately many horses never develop much strength & energy dissipation capacity in their heels. This leads to caudal hoof pain(NS), when the horse is forced to do more than his feet are capable of, and leads to problems of the actual bones(ND), tendons & joints(particularly navicular & P3 bones), which seems to be largely due to lack of circulation & lack of shock dissipation in those areas.



> and it only gets worse best option would be to sell her and start again


Aside from me personally having a moral problem with just palming an animal like this off, especially selling her for money, 'navicular' is not at all necessarily a death sentence, or even a career finisher. Unfortunately conventional treatments(developed long before current understanding) are effective only palliatively - they (usually temporarily) treat the pain but not the cause, so the condition continues & can worsen. But with the right treatment there is evidence that it can be reversed. It is now clear that with good management(and time) horses can return to (pain free) usefulness, even assuming bone & tendon damage/changes couldn't be reversed. But recent research on bone remodelling(again you'll find some papers online; Dr Mark D Fisher's is one) suggests that even this may be able to be reversed!


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

You really can't make a blanket statement like "navicular horses can/can't jump." It depends on exactly what is going with _this particular horse_, at _this particular moment in time._. "Navicular" is a very ambiguous diagnosis, anyway. I would monitor her progress with periodic radiographs and rechecks, and I would let her comfort assess where you are at. If she is staying sound jumping, I would continue to use her. If she starts to give you trouble or exhibits further deterioration of the bone, I would reevaluate. I would certainly not give her anything to mask her pain as the problem will continue to worsen. And I would not breed her, since there definitely is a genetic component to navicular, or at the very least to conformational attributes that contribute the the eventual development of navicular.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bubba13 said:


> And I would not breed her, since there definitely is a genetic component to navicular, or at the very least to conformational attributes that contribute the the eventual development of navicular.


Given my comments above on that factor and also that I agree that 'navicular' is a very ambiguous lable, interested to learn more about the definite genetic component & conformational attributes?


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

I just wanted to chime in and mention that a diagnosis of navicular changes isn't always a life ending, or even a career ending statement. I am, by no means, an expert on the subject but I do have a bit of experience with it. Many horses, especially so young, that are given time to recuperate and their feet are kept meticulously can go on to lead very productive and competitive lives even with navicular. 

My old guy Flash was diagnosed as a 5 year old but with some time off and a good farrier, he came back 100%. He spent many years as a competitive show and team roping horse and ranch horse before being claimed as my step-mom's trail partner (she was a beginner). He finally had to be retired in the fall of '07 at 23 because the arthritis in his shoulders was giving him fits and he was having some minor issues with his navicular. He was still sound for light riding, but we would often spend hours a day horseback over very rough terrain and we felt that work like that would be too rough on him.

I can't tell you why Davis didn't see it. It could have been for any reason, but either way, people make mistakes. It happens and I've learned that it doesn't help to get upset about things that are already said and done. Try to think about what to do now. Get your vet and farrier working together to figure out the best game plan for your mare and if you feel hesitant about what they suggest, don't be afraid to get a second opinion.

Don't worry, it's not the end of the world. Think of it more as a speed bump.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Well, I'm no physiologist or equine anatomy expert, but clearly there are some very visible conformations that predispose towards the development of navicular: inherently bad feet, short/upright pasterns, excessive weight on the front end, and such. These are obviously genetic. And beyond the macroscopic scale of such unfortunate inherited deviations, you have to wonder about smaller things that we don't know about....I passed on buying a horse a couple years ago when his X-rays turned up "enlarged vascular channels" in the navicular bone. He was a young guy who had, admittedly, been started earlier than I would have liked, but I don't think he had been ridden into the ground by any stretch of the imagination, either. The consensus of the (lameness expert) vets who viewed his films was that he was a ticking time bomb to end up a cripple within a few years. His conformation was really quite good, and his farrier care had been at least adequate. So _something_ was at play beneath the surface there....

Of course it's not like HYPP or other truly genetic diseases--there's no "navicular gene" or anything. It is, naturally, a very complex and poorly-understood phenomenon. I'm sure that it is most often a combination of nature and nurture elements, and I am equally confident that there are cases of navicular that are 100% inherited from poor breeding (I've heard of stallions who "throw navicular more often than they throw color") as well as cases that are 100% induced by poor care.

As for the mare in question, at six she is still quite young to be showing signs of wear and tear, regardless of how hard she was ridden in the past. Now there are a number of assumptions here. I'm assuming, since the changes are visible on radiographs, that we're looking at true navicular _disease_ as opposed to navicular _syndrome_ here. I believe, but frankly have no readily-available evidence to support, that the former has more of a genetic component than the latter. But I'm guessing we're talking about lollipop lesions/enlarged vascular channels and/or bone spurs/remodeling here--and I'm also assuming that vet #2 is right. Otherwise, all bets are off and this may not even be a navicular horse. But if we are indeed talking about bone deterioration, how much hard riding and terrible shoeing would it take to do that to such a young horse? A helluva lot, I'd say, unless again there was an underlying genetic or conformational issue.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Thanks for that Bubba. It's all very interesting to me. I know it has been - and still is, to a large extent - a poorly understood disease and that it has been assumed in the past that it was largely genetic - because they couldn't explain it otherwise. There are indeed still unanswered questions about it(not to mention too many unquestioned answers!) Also as stated, not saying genetics play _no_ part. But current research & evidence is mounting to suggest that it is very much 'nurture' over 'nature' that causes it. 

So I am all ears for any evidence for or against. As you are so confident of genetic factors, I'm wondering _why_ it's so obvious to you that problems such as "bad feet, short/upright pasterns, excessive weight on the front end" are _necessarily_ inherant/genetic? 

With regard to horses that are 'still quite young to be showing signs of wear and tear', considering that _any_ horse has undeveloped digital cushions until 4-5 years, it seems to me likely that hard working youngsters show 'wear & tear' _because_ they're worked young.

I'm also interested in any evidence to support the assumption that 'ND' as opposed to 'NS' is more likely genetic, as in my understanding ND is likely just a _progression_ of 'NS' type problems. Another question I have with the genetic argument is that if it were so, how do horses recover - and they can - from something that's genetically in built? 

So... I'm not professing to know the answers, just one of those difficult types who likes to analyse the whys & wherefores, and it just seems to me there are too many questions and discrepancies to make assumptions about genetics and the likes.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Back to the OP's original question, if the horse wasn't showing any clinical signs of lameness when the examined her, UC Davis may have decided that the navicular changes shown on the xray weren't significant. 

They became significant when coupled with a horse showing a degree of lameness on that hoof. 

Finding of navicular changes on Xrays alone do not have a strong positive correlation to lameness. And a single set of navicular xrays is not particularly useful for diagnosis. Several sets, taken over a period of time to show the the progression of the changes is a much more accurate diagnostic tool. 

I frequently advised clients to have them taken on pre-purchase NOT as a diagnostic tool but to have for comparison purposes and as an aid in selling the horse down the road. 

The disturbing thing to me is the presence of side bone AND any navicular changes in a 6 year old, combined with a strenous work history. I certainly hope UC Davis commented on those findings in their report, even though the horse presented sound at the time of the exam. That would be a big red flag for me in looking at a performance prospect. 

I doubt this horse is going to make it to prelim without a lot of medical intervention. Personally, I wouldn't do it. You already have the evidence that she won't hold up to the necessary training. Besides the ethical issues, this way lies interrupted training schedules, missed competetions, frustration, and frankly, safety issues - I don't want to be worrying about my horse's soundness while jumping a 4' course. 

I do think selling her, with full disclosure, to someone who is only going to be doing light riding, or donating her, is the right way to go. 

All that said, you have my sympathy. This is a miserable situation. I'm sure you have a lot of money already invested in the horse, and I'm sure you thought you performed due diligence with your vet exam. This is a horrible object lesson that nothing with horses is predictable or certain. Good luck!


----------



## tealamutt (Aug 21, 2009)

Agree with Maura 100%.

As many have said, navicular is not completely understood (but certainly better than some on here would have you believe. I think they may be confusing laminitis with navicular). 

Here is where I think the confusion comes in: navicular changes seen on radiographs are not like looking at a broken bone. It is not a yes or no question such as "is the horse navicular or not". "Navicular disease" refers to seeing degenerative changes in the navicular bone. The changes often do not correlate to the degree of lameness. How affected the horse is (ie is he LAME), is what most people use to call a horse "navicular". In other words a horse can have navicular disease but if he is not lame most people don't call him a "navicular horse". Hope that makes sense.

A horse can be very lame/affected and have minimal changes to the bone or could be sound and have dramatic changes. The degree of correlation may also be the reason others have stated that the disease is not well understood.

The bottom line is this: you vetted a horse who was not clinically affected (which is what happened, Davis did not "miss" the changes, there was just no lameness associated so they chalked them up to normal degeneration). Now that you have had this horse in training and the changes in the bone are clearly causing clinical signs AND you have had to inject the hocks the picture has changed. Yes some "navicular horses" remain competitive (by far the exception, not the rule) but the proof is in the pudding. Your horse's prognosis for the future is not good. Showing the clinical signs he now shows while being in training, coupled with radiographic changes, his prognosis is not good to go to the level you want, or even for jumping at all.


Your best bet is to follow Maura's advice and sell with FULL disclosure. You're not ending his career, but you're ending one which will not being long lived or happy for him. Find him a better job and get a horse who will be able to take you where you want to go! Good luck, what an unfortunate set of circumstances. Just goes to show no matter how careful you are, horses are a risky business. I hope you find a good solution for yourself and your guy.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Thanks for the additions, Tealamutt. 

I have known horses with horrible looking navicular x-rays - lots of "lollipops" or lesions in the bone - to stay sound and competive for years, and I have seen horses with very mild changes on xray to show a full range of clinical signs - postive to hoof testers over the heel, classic navicular posture - parked out, trying to take weight off the heel, nerve blocked out sound, etc.

An xray in absence of other clinical signs just isn't valid diagnostically.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

loosie said:


> So I am all ears for any evidence for or against. As you are so confident of genetic factors, I'm wondering _why_ it's so obvious to you that problems such as "bad feet, short/upright pasterns, excessive weight on the front end" are _necessarily_ inherant/genetic?


Short of the extreme "fitting" done by halter horse trainers or corrective action to fix congenital defects such as severely crooked legs (and done at a _very_ young age), is there really any way to change a horse's inborn conformation, especially to any sort of high degree? If conformation were so malleable, it wouldn't be a high consideration for breeding....and we know that that's not the case. Both structural flaws and exemplary conformation breed pretty true.



> With regard to horses that are 'still quite young to be showing signs of wear and tear', considering that _any_ horse has undeveloped digital cushions until 4-5 years, it seems to me likely that hard working youngsters show 'wear & tear' _because_ they're worked young.


Maybe. I honestly don't know. But I'd still think it would take several years of such abuse to show significant changes, unless they were being ridden so hard that no sensible person would ever treat them that way. This would have to be well beyond normal, accepted training practices, I would think.



> I'm also interested in any evidence to support the assumption that 'ND' as opposed to 'NS' is more likely genetic, as in my understanding ND is likely just a _progression_ of 'NS' type problems. Another question I have with the genetic argument is that if it were so, how do horses recover - and they can - from something that's genetically in built?


As I said before, I sort of made up the former statement just based on my personal experience and deductive reasoning. I don't know that it's factual; but I don't know that anyone has proven otherwise, either. But if/when horses do recover--some can, some can't--it's nearly always with some sort of therapeutic intervention in the form of specialty shoeing or trimming (either that, or "cheating" by masking pain through drugs or other means). You have to fix the hoof balance, change the way you ride the horse, and hope for the best. Or do things like Isoxsuprine (now very controversial) which increases blood flow and thus promotes healing, or Tildren which aids in bone remodeling by preventing bone breakdown. If the horse has inherently badly shaped feet, you have to "correct" them. And so on.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

tealamutt said:


> As many have said, navicular is not completely understood (but certainly better than some on here would have you believe. I think they may be confusing laminitis with navicular).


Good posts Maura & Tealamutt! Agree fully, inc with the above. If you were including me in the 'some on here', it was that I was speaking about the general horse community(& some vets it seems:?) still being largely in the dark about it, despite researchers such as Dr Bowker for eg. having brought understanding forward in leaps & bounds, on general hoof health, not just 'navicular'. I recommend people look at & consider his findings. Interesting point about confusing with lami, as it seems that some conventional treatments of NS/D can also lead to lami & ‘rotation’.



> A horse can be very lame/affected and have minimal changes to the bone or could be sound and have dramatic changes. The degree of correlation may also be the reason others have stated that the disease is not well understood.


 Something to ponder; _why_ is it that cadaver specimens studied so commonly show degeneration/changes to P3 & nav. bones to different degrees, as to be classed as ‘normal’, leaving clinical diagnosis of ‘diseases’ largely down to symptoms? Could it be because sound horses are rarely put down/donated for study?



> is there really any way to change a horse's inborn conformation, especially to any sort of high degree? If conformation were so malleable, it wouldn't be a high consideration for breeding....and we know that that's not the case. Both structural flaws and exemplary conformation breed pretty true.


 Sorry that I’m not better at explaining things. I’m not at all doubting that genetics _can_ of course be a problem. What I’m questioning is the assumption that many ‘flaws’ are ‘obviously’ genetic. For eg. When it’s been shown that environmental factors play such a large part in development and horses on stud farms & conventional establishments are kept, fed, brought up in largely the same manner, could the assumed ‘innate’ conformation not be more to do with that? And I’m not doubting ‘conformation’ _can_ be unchangeable, but that’s not at all necessarily the case either, or as above, necessarily genetic.



> But I'd still think it would take several years of such abuse to show significant changes, unless they were being ridden so hard that no sensible person would ever treat them that way. This would have to be well beyond normal, accepted training practices, I would think.


 That is a much rosier view IMO than what seems to be the case. I think this is greatly underestimating the effects of more ‘normal’ apparently ‘sensible’ management. I think that is partly why conditions such as ‘navicular’ are so prevalent.



> I don't know that it's factual; but I don't know that anyone has proven otherwise, either.


 I don’t know if research has yet ‘proven’ otherwise either & I don’t know how much evidence needs to be collected for it to be considered scientifically ‘proven’. But absence of proof is not proof of absence and that is what I’m trying to get at – that it shouldn’t be assumed it must be one way just because it hasn’t yet been proven otherwise.



> But if/when horses do recover--some can, some can't--it's nearly always with some sort of therapeutic intervention in the form of specialty shoeing or trimming (either that, or "cheating" by masking pain through drugs or other means)


 Conventional ‘intervention’ such as above tends to be purely palliative & I’m not sure that ‘specialty shoeing’ is any less ‘cheating’ than drugs, as it doesn’t do anything to halt the progression & often worsens the mechanics, just (usually temporarily) relieves the symptoms. Therefore that’s not what I’m considering ‘cured’ and IME true recovery is often about _absence_ of conventional ‘therapeutic’ treatments.


----------



## tealamutt (Aug 21, 2009)

Just a quick follow up to you Loosie, I hope you didn't think I was being snotty by saying "some on here..." I didn't mean anyone in particular, have just read some pretty poorly informed yet adamantly stated opinions on this BB in the past. I have a lot of respect/encouragement for those (including yourself) who question conventional treatment and wisdom on feet issues. No feet no horse, yet it is one of the most undereducated topics in equine medicine in veterinary programs. Just didn't want anyone to think I was trying to get jabs in or that I think there is "one way" to approach lameness issues! Bucking the system is how we advance (within reason of course!)


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

No worries, Tealamutt, didn't take yours - or any others in 'bad blood' & I hope people don't take mine badly either. I just respectfully think it's important to 'stir the pot' to analyse where/why our assumptions are made & how much real grounding there is for them.


----------

