Redden vs. Chapman

[Ronald Aalders]

As a shoer I've learned a lot by asking questions. Apparently I'm not smart enough to think of some anwers myself. But with a little help I may end up an ok shoer in the end......... Whenever that may be!

Being fascinated with the effects of DDFT pull on the equine foot you'll often find me ruining my good looks (LOL) behind a computer screen looking for interesting stuff on this subject on the internet. The other day I ran into a website set up by a guy called Peter Vandyke. www.olympus.net/personal/pvd/pvd.html Obviously Mr. Vandyke is very impressed by the research done by the late Burney Chapman. And I guess he ought to be.

As far as I came to understand them, the main points in this treatment protocol are (frog)support and dorsal hoofwall resection. The reason for the support is immobilization of P3 in its normal relationship to the coronary corium allowing perfusion enhancing healing conditions of torn lamellae, the bond between the hoofwall and P3. To prevent obstruction of bloodflow as much as possible such support should be provided through a heart bar. No sole covering hoofpacks should be used to limit the risk of destroying bloodflow. When despite this support P3 rotates or already rotated, a lamellar wedge will occur between the face of P3 and the hoofwall. This wedge "consists of epidermal tissue proliferating to form a weak, disorganised mass" as Dr. C.C. Pollit puts it. From a mechanical point of view it seems logical to remove this wedge as it sits between the hoofwall and P3 and creates a wedge keeping these two apart preventing a secure lamellar bond between P3 and the hoofwall.

Dr. Ric Redden's approach is another one. Redden's main point is reducing DDFT pull. Redden says that P3 should be considered as if it's lying in a hammock. This "hammock" is created by DDFT as it cradles P3 ventral/palmarly and dorsal lamellae holding the other end. In this view the lamellae act as antagonists to DDFT in the equine foot. When the lamellae give, DDFT pull remains, forcing P3 to rotate. By reducing DDFT pull, the pull on P3 forcing it to rotate is also reduced. DDFT pull can be reduced by raising the heels with 20+ degrees (somewhere between 20 and 25 degrees) when the foot was a normal one when laminitis struck. To further prevent DDFT pull acting on P3 the foot's breakover should be brought back as much as the apex of P3. (Íf I understand him correctly Redden now endorses a spot for breakover at the center of articulation of P3, which is even further back) Redden does not like resections but wants to leave the hoof capsule as strong as possible. No resections, no grooving. The reduction of DDFT pull will reduce the crushing of the cir***flex vessels in the foot, allowing perfusion of the solar corium creating sole mass. This will protect the foot.

Both views are views of people with extensive experience treating laminitic horses, but they're on both sides of the scale facing each other! I would think that after treating so many horse like these guys have a universal protocol would come up sooner or later. But nothing like that.

In Redden's view a DDFT tenotomy is a life saver at times, while Chapman c.s. say rotation has nothing to do with DDFT pull! You can not get more opposite of each other than that! Anyone who has read some of the relevant postings on this board knows I'm in favour of Redden's approach. I don't know which side is more succesfull in treating laminitic horses, if such a statistic has any value at all. But I would like to know how two totally different treatments can exist together without one of them getting obsolete?

What do you think? What tactics do you use when faced with a laminitic horse? An other theories I haven't heard of? Any other input you'ld like to share?

Thank you,


Ronald Aalders