Search

• Race day CMI incidence for Thoroughbreds in Uruguay was 0.42 per 1,000 race starts • Incidence of CMI in training was 0.059 per 100 horse months • Catastrophic humeral fractures occurred more frequently during training than racing • The majority of race day CMIs involved the distal limb (71.8%) • CMI risk was greater for horses less intensively raced with more time between starts Catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries (CMI) pose a major welfare concern to horses and their riders, yet limited data are available describing their occurrence in South America. Using a retrospective cohort and case-control design, the objective of the study was to determine the incidence of CMI for Thoroughbreds in training and racing, and associated horse-level risk factors in Uruguay. Seventy-seven Thoroughbreds sustained a CMI, 37 of which were age- and sex-matched to 111 control horses in the same race. Training and racing data from 2011 to 2017 were collected. Incidence of race day CMI per 1,000 race starts and training CMI incidence per 100 horse months were calculated using Poisson regression. Univariable logistic regression was used to assess relationships between race history and occurrence of CMI by fracture location, and multivariable for all fracture locations. Overall race day incidence of CMI was 0.42 per 1,000 race starts (95% CI 0.29, 0.60). The incidence of CMI in training was 0.059 per 100 horse months. Twenty-nine percent (22/77) of horses that sustained a CMI had not raced prior. Most fractures were of the forelimbs (80.3%). There were 32 (41.6%) distal and 39 (50.6%) proximal limb fractures. The risk of CMI was greater for horses with fewer places (P =.001), and greater time between the previous race and the race in which CMI occurred (P =.020). The rate of race day CMI was low, despite Uruguay being a racing jurisdiction with policies and risk factors associated with greater CMI rates compared to other jurisdictions. Lightly raced horses with long periods since their previous race start should be monitored closely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Jockey injury surveillance and data collection guidelines have been published for professional horse-racing in Europe. • Substantial variation in jockey injury data collection and reporting practices exists worldwide, with little evidence of use of previously published guidelines. • Recommendations are presented for international horse-racing authorities in support of standardized jockey injury data collection and reporting practices. Jockey injuries are common in professional horse-racing and can result in life-threatening or career-ending outcomes. Robust injury data are essential to understand the circumstances of injury occurrence and ultimately identify prevention opportunities. This study aimed to identify jockey injury surveillance practices of international horse-racing authorities (HRAs) and the specific data items collected and reported by each HRA. A cross-sectional survey of representatives (e.g. Chief Medical Officer) from international HRAs was conducted. An online and paper questionnaire was designed comprised of 32 questions. Questions considered the barriers and facilitators to data collection within each HRA, and where available, what data were collected and reported by HRAs. Representatives from 15 international racing jurisdictions were included, of which 12 reported collection of race day injuries or falls, using varied definitions of medical attention and time loss. Six HRAs did not have a definition for a jockey injury, and eight HRAs had no parameters for describing injury severity. Race day exposure was collected by two HRAs. Results were commonly presented by HRAs as the number of injuries (n = 9/15) or proportion of injured jockeys (n = 6/15). The lack of a designated role for collection, collation and reporting of data was the main barrier for injury surveillance. Twelve HRAs agreed that mandatory collection would be a strong facilitator to improving practice. Enhancement and standardization of international jockey injury surveillance is required to move forward with evidence informed prevention. Concurrent investigation of how reporting practices can be best supported within existing HRA structures is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]