Persistence of orthopaedic hoof blocks for the treatment of lame cattle kept permanently at pasture

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of results from published studies evaluating the retention of orthopaedic hoof blocks (shoes) for treatment of lameness in dairy cows.

			Proportion (%) with block present		Survival (days)
Study	Country of study	Block type	Day 14	Day 30	Median	Maximum
Pyman (1997)	Australia	Wood block	20/39 (51%)	12/39 (31%)	NR	NR
		CowSlip^a	37/42 (88%)	24/42 (57%)	NR	NR
Blowey et al. (1999)	United Kingdom	CowSlip^a	96%^b	94%^b	84	224
Nuss and Tiefenthaler (2000)^c	Germany	Metal shoe	NR	88/93^d (95%)	NR	NR
		Wood block	NR	209/262^d (80%)	NR	NR
		Podobloc^e	NR	43/49^d (88%)	NR	NR
		CowSlip^a	NR	26/28^d (93%)	NR	NR
Wehrle et al. (2000)^f	Switzerland	Modified CowSlip^a	53/55 (96%)	NR	NR	NR
		Wood block^g	111/113 (98%)	NR	NR	NR
Perusia (2006)	Argentina	Wood block	NR	NR	42.3^h	161
Sala et al. (2008)	Romania	CowSlip^a	NR	NR	19.7^h	19^i
		Wood block	NR	NR	27.1^h	45
Fiedler (2011)	Germany	Standard wood (23 mm height)	NR	9/18 (50%)	NR	NR
		High wood (30 mm height)	NR	11/18 (61%)	NR	NR
		Standard wood wedge^j (15–23 mm)	NR	16/18 (89%)	NR	NR
		High wood wedge^j (23–30 mm)	NR	12/18 (75%)	NR	NR
Stroe et al. (2015)	Romania	Foam block	3/7	0/7	13	15
		Wood block	6/6	3/6	28	39
Ranjbar et al. (2021)	Australia	Low density wood	4/12 (33%)	0/12^k	14	NR
		Medium density wood	8/12 (67%)	6/12^k (50%)	18	NR
		High density wood	8/12 (67%)	5/12^k (41%)	18	NR

^a Moulded polyvinyl chloride (PVC) shoes.

^b Estimated from Kaplan–Meier survival curve.

^c Only blocks applied to > 25 claws included.

^d Estimated from observed losses up to 35 days after treatment.

^e Rubber block.

^f Data reported at 20 days.

^g Amalgamated data from flat (23 mm) wooden blocks (n = 61) and wedge blocks (9-mm toe and 23-mm heel) (n = 52).

^h Mean days.

ⁱ Reported maximum survival is less than reported mean.

^j Wedge height reported from toe to heel.

^k Examined on Day 28.

NR = not reported.

Figure 1. Hoof blocks used in a study of the retention of hoof blocks used for the treatment of lame dairy cows at pasture, from left to right: wooden block with Bovi-Bond adhesive (Shoof International, Cambridge, NZ), CowSlip (Giltspur Scientific Ltd, Ballyclare, Ireland), Walkease, medium size (Shoof International).

Table 2. Distribution of three hoof block products applied to hind feet of cows (n = 67) enrolled in a study of retention of hoof blocks used to treat lame dairy cows at pasture.

	Right foot		Left foot
	Lateral	Medial	Lateral	Medial	Total blocks
Wooden block^a	4	7	5	5	21
Plastic shoe^b	3	8	4	8	23
Foam block^c	4	6	7	6	23
Total	11	21	16	19	67

^a With Bovi-Bond adhesive (Shoof International, Cambridge, NZ).

^b CowSlip (Giltspur Scientific Ltd, Ballyclare, Ireland).

^c Walkease (Shoof International).

Table 3. Mean (95% CI) track distances walked (km/day) up to block loss (or Day 28, whichever was later) by cows (n = 67) enrolled in a study of retention of three different hoof blocks for the treatment of lame cows at pasture.

Product	Period	Mean distance (95% CI)
Wooden block (n = 21)	Day 1–28	0.33 (0.302–0.359)
	Day 1–14	0.327 (0.297–0.357)
	Day 14–28^a	0.353 (0.315–0.391)
Plastic shoe (n = 23)	Day 1–28	0.331 (0.303–0.358)
	Day 1–14	0.327 (0.297–0.357)
	Day 14–28^a	0.328 (0.298–0.358)
Foam block (n = 23)	Day 1–28	0.306 (0.278–0.333)
	Day 1–14	0.307 (0.277–0.337)
	Day 14–28^a	0.330 (0.288–0.388)

^a Mean from 14 to 28 days after treatment for cows which had blocks on day 14 only.

Figure 2. Survival curve from Cox regression model showing comparison between three hoof block products in time between application and loss (accounting for limb and claw to which block was applied, i.e. right vs. left hind limb and medial vs. lateral claw). Data are right censored at 28 days. The HR showed a clear difference between products in the hazard of losing a block. Compared to the plastic shoe (PS; - - -) the HR for the wooden block (WB; ———) was 4.8 (95% CI = 1.8–12.4) while the HR for the foam block (FB; – – – –) was 9.5 (95% CI = 3.6–24.4).

Pyman MF. Comparison of bandaging and elevation of the claw for the treatment of foot lameness in dairy cows. Australian Veterinary Journal 75, 132–5, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1997.tb14173.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blowey R, Girdler C, Thomas C. Persistence of foot blocks used in the treatment of lame cows. Veterinary Record 144, 642–3, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.23.642

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nuss K, Tiefenthaler I. Eigenschaften und klinische Anwendung gebräuchlicher Klauenkothurne [Design and clinical applicability of different claw blocks]. Tierärztliche Praxis 28(G), 125–32, 2000

 Google Scholar

Wehrle M, Lischer CJ, Geyer H, Landerer R, Räber M. Drei Behandlungsmethoden zur Entlastung erkrankter Klauen im Vergleich [Three different techniques of elevating an affected claw in comparison]. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde 142, 507–11, 2000

 Google Scholar

*Perusia OR. Stay on time of orthopedic wooden blocks on cows in extensive feeding system. Proceedings of 14th International Symposium and 6th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants. P142, 2006

 Google Scholar

Sala A, Igna C, Schuszler L. Comparative aspect of pododermatitis circumscripta (sole ulcer) treatment in dairy cow. Bulletin UASVM, Veterinary Medicine 65, 207–11, 2008

 Google Scholar

Fiedler A. Klötze kleben – neue Ergebnisse aus der Praxis [Applying blocks – new results from practice]. Abstracts of Modulfortbildung “Funktionelle Klauenpflege und Kontrolle der Klauengesundheit in Milchviehherden.” Pp 12–14. Vetmeduni, Vienna, Austria, 2011

 Google Scholar

Stroe TF, Muste A, Beteg F, Dirlea I, Hodis L, Varga R. Observation regarding hoof blocks use in dairy cows. Bulletin UASVM Veterinary Medicine 72, 98–101, 2015. https://doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-vm:10961

 Google Scholar

Ranjbar S, Rabiee AR, Reynolds MW, Mohler VL, House JK. Wooden hoof blocks: are we using the right wood? New Zealand Veterinary Journal 69, 158–64, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2020.1850368

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar