Do tight nosebands have an effect on the upper airways of horses?

Do tight nosebands have an effect on the upper airways of horses?

Vet Med Sci. 2024 Jul;10(4):e1478. doi: 10.1002/vms3.1478.
Authors
Dominik Scholler 1 , Jana Wittenberg 2 , Yury Zablotski 3 , Anna May 1
Affiliations

1 Equine Clinic of Ludwig Maximilians University, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
2 Equine Clinic of Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
3 Clinic for Ruminants, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Oberschleissheim, Germany.

PMID: 38885311
DOI: 10.1002/vms3.1478

Abstract

Background/objectives: The public perception relating to the welfare of horses involved with equestrian sports is associated with training methods used and the presentation of horses at events. In this context, very tight nosebands, which are intended to prevent the horse from opening its mouth, also attract a lot of attention. Various studies have evaluated the impact of tight nosebands on stress parameters, whereas the effect of tight nosebands on upper airway function is unknown. Therefore, the aim of the study was to use overground endoscopy to evaluate changes in pharyngeal and laryngeal function when a tight noseband is fitted. Moreover, the ridden horse pain ethogram (RHpE) was applied to investigate signs of discomfort (Dyson et al., 2018).

Study design: A randomized, blinded, and prospective study was performed.

Methods: Sixteen warmblood horses consisting of twelve mares and four geldings with a mean age of 11.63 ± 3.53 years were ridden on 2 consecutive days with either loose or tight nosebands (two fingers or no space between bridge of the nose and noseband, respectively) and inserted endoscope in a random order. Videos were taken in a riding arena during a standardized exercise protocol involving beginner level tasks for 30 min in all gaits. For video analysis, freeze frames were prepared and analyzed at the beginning of the expiration phase. Pharyngeal diameter was measured using the pharynx-epiglottis ratio. Other findings (swallowing, pharyngeal collapse, soft palate movements, and secretion) were also evaluated. Moreover, the RHpE was applied. Descriptive statistics and generalized linear mixed effects models were used. Results with a p-value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: While the pharynx-epiglottis ratio did not change significantly in horses ridden with loose versus tight nosebands, there was an increase in mean grade and total counts of parameters assessed in the pharyngeal region, for example, grade of secretion (1.5 [±SD 0.89] vs. 3.13 [±SD 0.96]; p = 0.0001), axial deviation of the aryepiglottic folds (0.29 [±SD 0.73] vs. 1.33 [±SD 1.44]; p = 0.01), and pharyngeal collapse (0.69 [±SD 0.87] vs. 1.88 [±SD 1.54]; p = 0.005) in horses ridden with tight nosebands. There was no RHpE score above 8 indicating musculoskeletal pain, but the RHpE scores were significantly higher in horses ridden with tight nosebands (p < 0.001). Main limitations: Video quality was limited when horses showed large amounts of secretion. Another limitation was the small number of horses. Conclusions: Results add to the evidence obtained in other studies that tight nosebands do not only cause adverse reactions based on the RHpE score such as head behind the vertical or intense staring but also contribute to changes in the pharyngeal region, such as increased secretion and collapse of pharyngeal structures. This may provide further support for future decisions regarding regulations on nosebands. Keywords: animal welfare; equestrian sports; horse; noseband; overground endoscopy; stress. © 2024 The Author(s). Veterinary Medicine and Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.