Jump to content
BC Boards
Klaudia945

RTG photo- base for diagnosis

Recommended Posts

So like in the title...

I went with my dog to wet, because i want to do RTG photo of her hips. It was supposed to be information that her bones are ok, because we do some dog sports, and I just want to be calm about her health. Vet after seeing a RTG said that her hips looks good. But in home I look at the photo, and it turned out that it's not quite good quality. I mean dog don't lay quite straight. So I wonder if vet can give me a diagnosis based on that RTG?

 

Hips of my girl:

1335ecd206f46fc1gen.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How old is your dog?

 

This view is not what I would consider well positioned and that can affect how accurately a diagnosis can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bright object in the lower left appears to be an artifact, which I am guessing to be side view of metal ring on left ring finger of human hand. Appears both left and right hands are helping to extend the dog's legs for the x-ray. No training in radiology here (I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...), but that can't be bone.

 

Liz, you are probably seeing something completely separate. Hope it's nothing connected to dog's present or future health problems. -- TEC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about the OP's country, but in the USA you can get in big trouble if they catch you with hands in a radiograph. Yes, those are hands in the bottom of the picture.

 

With regard to her hips, they are ok but the positioning isn't good. At that angle, her femoral necks look thick, which is a sign of HD. However, I wouldn't make any long term judgements based just on that one view since 80% of dysplastic dogs have normal looking hips if they are checked before 2 years of age. I don't know the age of this dog, but if I was concerned (lameness, cracking sounds, etc), I would do a PennHIP score (or the equivalent distraction index score in Europe).

 

Last year I had a pup that was clicking and cracking when she walked. I did standard hip rads and they looked great, better than the OP's dog actually. PennHIP scores were terrible. I wanted that info sooner rather than later so I didn't put another year or two into a dog I wasn't going to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that looked like a nice little diamond ring. And the dog needs to go to the bathroom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The study they are referencing is nearly 20 years old. The more recent studies show some different results. I will ask a friend of mine (boarded radiologist) if he can send me a link for the newest data.

 

You can't compare apples to oranges. I was giving a % of dysplastic dogs that have normal looking rads under 2 yrs of age. They are giving figures for the % of dogs who have normal looking hips at under 2 yrs of age and still look normal on their final rating at 2 yrs old.

 

"For normal hip conformations, the reliability was 89.6% at 3-6 months, 93.8% at 7-12 months, and 95.2% at 13-18 months."

 

Basically, OFA is saying normal hips look normal in pups (duh). I am saying abnormal hips can often look normal in pups, before time has led to degenerative changes. Quite frankly, I don't find the information very useful that normal hips look normal. I want the earliest method possible for weeding out the abnormal hips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way you stated it reads as if preliminary hip exams are only 20% accurate. Think about how future readers will take your statements.

 

Mark Billadeau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Liz, but probably to discourage vets and assistants from giving themselves cancer for the sake of an easy shot. It's not so much the hands in the shot as that the hands shouldn't have been exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the government heavily regulates radiation safety. You will get cancer if you are constantly exposing your hands like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have concerns about a dogs hips, standard views are not a terribly accurate way to find out if they are dysplastic. That statement holds true with both the study you linked and the one I am referencing. In case of lameness, clicking/cracking, etc, a distraction index is going to be a more sensitive test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the reason we know this is that the early scientists, and radiographers, were among the first to report the hair loss, cancers and burns associated with x rays, often in their hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liz please be kind enough to support your statements with links to the studies so that everyone can take a critical review of the studies.

Mark

 

Everyone might find the results of a search on google scholar:

 

accuracy of distraction index dysplasia

 

There were several studies which compared the predictive abilities of many CHD test methods used on young dogs and most found that not one method was significantly better than another. I did read one that suggested the best method to predict the results for when the dog is older is the same method that will be used when the dog is older. In other words, PennHip pin a young dog does the best job at predicting the PennHip score when it is older.

 

Finally, how good will any of these methods be at predicting CHD when CHD has such a large environmental factor in the development of CHD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have concerns about a dogs hips, standard views are not a terribly accurate way to find out if they are dysplastic. That statement holds true with both the study you linked and the one I am referencing. In case of lameness, clicking/cracking, etc, a distraction index is going to be a more sensitive test.

Denise Wall's article on hip dysplasia, which I recommend in any discussion of HD in border collies, comes to a different conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to not completely agree with Denise's theory. Association does not prove causation. http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2012/11/19/what-causes-disease-association-vs-causation-and-the-hill-criteria/ I suspect we simply have not applied enough selection pressure.

 

Most of my stuff is packed right now as I am in the middle of moving across the country, so I don't have access to some of the journals I have collected. I have asked my friend to send me the link to the study he shared with me once he has the free time to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denise Wall's article on hip dysplasia, which I recommend in any discussion of HD in border collies, comes to a different conclusion.

Interesting perspective, but I note all the primary references she cites date from the 1990s and the original copyright was from 2001. I also agree with Liz's comment

Association does not prove causation.

Obviously neither of my comments necessarily negate the validity of the author's hypothesis..but I would be interested to see Liz's articles to compare the 2 viewpoints (Liz I fully appreciate that personal circumstances mean this is not a trivial ask!),

 

ETA I also get the impression that in the UK there is much less emphasis placed on hip testing in working BCs (the general comment being that good hips are selected for by the nature of the work they do). when it is done, it is mainly some of the larger breeders and those individuals who have their dogs standing at stud for a lot of bitches...and I think both are aiming to send pups to the U.S...or maybe to the agility crowd who will probably be more willing to pay more than working stockmen/women

Edited by Maxi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get the impression that in the UK there is much less emphasis placed on hip testing in working BCs (the general comment being that good hips are selected for by the nature of the work they do).

 

That's been the rationale for many years. The problem with it, of course, is that problems aren't always evident until a dog is older and has already passed on the genes predisposing its offspring to CHD.

 

I had a young dog of incredible potential with an outstanding pedigree who scored OFA Severe at 2 years old. She had absolutely no outward signs of it or any appearance of being in pain. She was an excellent working dog (though limited by my inexperience) and her breeder asked on several occasions if he could buy her back, even after learning she was dysplastic. He only stopped asking after I told him she'd been spayed because of it.

 

I backed off from her training somewhat because I didn't want to aggravate her hips, and eventually placed her in a pet home. AFAIK she never really had any serious problems resulting from the HD, but do you (impersonal you) really think it would have been a wise decision to breed her no matter how well she worked? I don't, which is why I made sure it would never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GentleLake, my statement was based on my impression of the situation in the UK. I wasn't necessarily condoning it.

 

Obviously, everyone associated with working BCs wants to ensure that the breed continues to be as healthy as is practical (and I wasnt taking the 'you' in your final paragraph personally! B) )

 

However, if I have understood Dr Wall correctly,(in the article that Eileen cites), she sets out the hypothesis (ie idea/guess) that working BCs may require some laxity in their hips in order to do their job properly (to paraphrase her words).

 

So

-1) if Dr Wall's theory is correct (and some laxity is necessary)

and -2) if a screening test (other than working ability) is performed before there are any clinical symptoms,

then surely it follows that it is important not to set the bar too high or else the ability of the working border collie could (theoretically) be diminished :unsure: .

 

If this is indeed the case then for any test to indicate 'bad hips', it may be necessary to set the 'cut off' value in BCs at a different level than that used from other breed of dogs.

 

This requirement is different from the added necessity that any screening test has to have as few 'false positives' as possible (A false positive being a result that says ' highly likely to get bad hips' when the dog never actually goes on to develop the disease). :huh:

 

I hope my comments in this post makes sense because I appreciate they are theoretical and somewhat abstract :wacko: .. but it is for these reasons that I would like to see Liz's references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is exactly why I do not agree with Denise's theory. I think that our breed has looser hips because we have not applied enough selection pressure. Work alone is not enough to expose HD in Border Collies. They have such an extreme work ethic that they will keep going until they drop dead, even if in great pain. I have done PennHIP on almost every Border Collie I have owned and seen no lack of flexibility and maneuverability in the dogs with very tight hips. In fact, as the dogs with looser hips aged and developed arthritis and pain, they became stiff and careful with their movements while their tighter counterparts stayed sound and able to change direction with ease.

 

ETA, my dogs were volunteered as teaching cases for laxity studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is exactly why I do not agree with Denise's theory. I think that our breed has looser hips because we have not applied enough selection pressure. Work alone is not enough to expose HD in Border Collies. They have such an extreme work ethic that they will keep going until they drop dead, even if in great pain. I have done PennHIP on almost every Border Collie I have owned and seen no lack of flexibility and maneuverability in the dogs with very tight hips. In fact, as the dogs with looser hips aged and developed arthritis and pain, they became stiff and careful with their movements while their tighter counterparts stayed sound and able to change direction with ease.

Interesting, Liz, you may well be correct and not that I'm trying to diss your statements in any way, but is your observation a 100% correlation? Or just your impression?, because, unfortunately, impressions or small sample size can squew the real statistics (and... as you previous stated in this thread 'association does not prove 'causation')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...