Pechette Markley et al (2024a) noted that dogs handle dynamic obstacles differently than static obstacles, since a higher level of coordination and control of posture is required for the former. The teeter or seesaw is commonly used in agility trials, but there have been no previous studies into dogs' abilities and strategies when navigating this obstacle. This study analysed the performance of dogs of varying mass and breed over the teeter. A total of 20 dogs were included in the study, and attempts were made to cross the obstacle which were filmed with a GoPro camera. The median time to complete the test was 1.31 seconds. Footfall patterns varied, especially during the descent phase. Some dogs remained stationary while the teeter dropped, but others remained in motion while the teeter was still moving. Unsurprisingly, smaller dogs took more steps and took longer to complete the test. The authors note that the importance of this study is that the results suggest dogs use a variety of biomechanical strategies to navigate the teeter, and this provides information on the stability and postural control of dogs, which may influence the way injuries occur during the sport.
Other potential factors that could influence the performance of agility dogs include the surface of the course and the time of day. Pechette Markley et al (2024b) note that different surface types influence performance and risk of injury in humans and horses. They assessed the effect of surface type and time of day on speed and performance of dogs competing in agility sport. Three surfaces were compared; dirt, grass and sand, with courses categorised into jumpers, standards and speedstakes. For jumpers, a sand surface resulted in a markedly slower speed than a dirt surface, though grass and dirt had a similar effect on performance, with some variability. A consistent effect of time of day was not found. The authors suggest that the reduced performance on sand relates to the higher energy costs of running on this surface because of its higher compliance. They also note that variations within the types of surface such as amount of compaction and moisture content may contribute to the variability in findings. They conclude that surface effects on agility dog performance are complex, and further studies are needed in dogs to assess how surfaces might be involved in the risks of musculoskeletal injuries.
Ultimately, these studies would not be important if there was no evidence that musculoskeletal injuries occur in agility dogs. Kieves et al (2024) performed an internet survey of handlers of agility dogs to characterise stifle injuries and assess the potential risk factors that might predispose to these injuries. Individuals who had handled at least one dog which had competed in agility in the previous three years were eligible.
A total of 4197 responses were received, and the handlers of 216 dogs reported a stifle injury. The majority of injuries were either cranial cruciate ligament injury (approximately 50% of injuries) or patellar luxation (approximately 20% of injuries). As well as age, five other risk factors for injury were found. These were body mass adjusted for height, Border collie breed, males neutered before ten months or females neutered before their first season, younger handlers and behaviour on the teeter obstacle. However, no association was found between the number of competition days or the number of runs per day and injury. The authors note that the genetics, fitness level and conformation of the dogs may also contribute to injury.
These studies provide some preliminary information on factors associated with injury of agility dogs and may aid future research aimed at reducing these sporting injuries.