A stud dog I was considering had his hips evaluated last year as "borderline" and xrays were resubmitted six months later and he got a "fair." Two months later, he is now listed as "good" in the OFA database.

Did OFA change the rules? You can resubmit over the life of the dog now?

I've decided not to use this dog for other reasons, but I'm confused about the improvement of the OFA rating from borderline to fair to good. I thought a borderline could only be upgraded to a fair?

It's OFA magic!

We once had what appeared to be an excellent x-ray sent to OFA that came back as not passed. We could not beleive the results so we had them re-done two months later and they came back Excellent. It could be we sometimes get caught up when they are training clerks that do the paperwork.

This is why most respected ortho vets do not put much stock in ofa. It is far too easy for mistaken readings to be reported - or just not valued.

Subjective is not as good as objective.

And besides - A good hip is no more likely to produce a good hip as mild or fair or even excellent.

Penn - Hip - better./

PennHIP for breeding!!!

Kind of like real estate ....location ...location...location

OFA = positioning......positioning.....positioning

This is why it is so important that breeders understand what they are looking at in an X-ray. My experience is that many vets turn the Xray process over to a vet tech, who may not have the understanding of how important this is. Educating yourself lets you be 'part of the team' and enables you to say "RE-DO" when you see bad positioning.

As has been posted before "Positioning can not make a dysplastic dog sound, BUT bad positioning can make a good dog look bad."

OFA, PennHip, WindMorgan, etc...Are all TOOLS not ultimate answers. The pedigree, knowledge of siblings and other pertinent things allows you to evaluate your choices and weigh any risks.

I had a friend years ago whose dog got a Fair rating; Hips were re-submitted 1 year later - OFA Excellent. The previous poster is right - positioning is the key!

But that is the point. A vet has to be tested and certified to do PennHIP x-rays. Your vet can't just decide to try it one morning. My old vet asked his patients to let him do practice films on their dogs. My dog was one of them. The vet did not pass the first time around and had to keep resubmiting until he got it right. Positioning must be perfect for PennHIP to be able to take the measurements.

I used to take my dogs to my regular repro vet for x-rays. She gives a little valium if needed, and we're on and off the table in no time. Except, the exposure and positioning were not perfect. I had a bitch that was Prelim Fair at 12 months, Fair at 24 months (both physical restraint only with a non-specialist) and I just couldn't believe it. After her first litter, at age 37 months, I took her to our local radiologist and on third submission she came back Excellent. While fair is passing, I knew I didn't have a good film and wanted a more true reading, one way or the other.

Now I don't waste my time with my local vet even for prelims. I know the quality and opinion of the board-certified radiologist is what I want (good or bad), even if it costs a pretty penny. She used to read for OFA and if anything is conservative in her reviews.

I have a good friend whose dog came back SEVERE in both hips at age 24 months. The owners did not request return of the films and were left scratching heads. There was no way OFA reported correctly. I was with them when the dog was repeated 6 months later and the films were gorgeous. They came back Good on resubmit. No one at OFA ever explained it. I suspect a clerical error either in labeling of films or in reporting. Mistakes can be made in any manual system, but it sure would have been nice to have some follow up investigation!

My current vet submits digitally, but if your vet sends hard copies in, you can pay $5 more to have them retured. It's not on the submission form, but is on the website as an option and someone told me about it a few years back. If you do submit hard copy, its worth the $5 to have them returned to ensure that the correct film was read, and also to have as a baseline if the dog develops an issue down the road!

"This is why most respected ortho vets do not put much stock in ofa. It is far too easy for mistaken readings to be reported - or just not valued."

When you make a sweeping statement like this, you need to quote the SOURCE of this poll. Where was it published what percentage of orthopedic specialists discredited OFA? If it is NOT an official poll and NOT published, then it is VERY irresponsible for you to publicly make such a statement. You may not put much stock in OFA, but that gives you no right to speak for the "majority" of board certified specialists.

I have had reason to deal with about 20 orthopedic specialists over the 40 years I have been in dogs. Only one favored a fulcrum method like PennHIP over OFA evaluation. All of the others had a lot of respect for OFA and some were evaluators for the scheme.

I have had long discussions with evaluators in other countries as research for several articles in the past. The 5 foreign evaluators for their countries' schemes all supported OFA and felt that the PennHIP system was not effective in measuring overall orthopedic conformation due to its restriction of using only laxity as a measure.

Clearly YOU prefer PennHIP and think it is the better system, but that gives you no basis or right to speak for all board certified orthopedic specialists. The few you know may prefer the PH method - but they certainly are NOT a majority. When you have a published source for this poll, please post it here. Until then, try not to project your personal opinion as if it came from a group of licensed professionals without their knowledge and consent. I will do the same

Thanks Susan and Carrie for your additions. I keep saying that the OFA evaluators do not have a crystal ball to consult, only the films. If the positioning, exposure, etc. are not good, then how can the evaluation be? The opinion you get is only as valid as the shadow snapshot you send to be evaluated.

"Did OFA change the rules? You can resubmit over the life of the dog now? "

No change of rules - you have always been able to resubmit anytime over the life of the dog. Back in the 80s, because ES had such a problem with CHD, a few concerned breeders had their dogs reevaluated at 5 years and one always did follow-ups at ages 4 and 6. I, personally, had an ES that cleared at 2 years and was dysplastic at 4. We had him redone and evaluated by OFA because so many of his kids had hip problems. Some dogs get better with age and some don't.

I have also had a bitch that was evaluated as "borderline" on first submittal. It was a combination of condition, position and film density. Often a borderline reading is just a way of saying that it is impossible to determine the hip status based on the film. We resubmitted her 4 months later and got 2 fair and 1 good reading. Although she was still not in excellent muscle tone at that time, we did not bother to have her reevaluated again when she was back in full condition. I suspect (but can not say for certain) that she would have moved up to a good if we had waited. She was coming into season, however, and we wanted to snap the film before breeding her. Timing in life is everything.

Remember, you are sending OFA a shadow snapshot. If the film or the dog are not in top-notch condition, how can you expect your evaluation to be???

So, IF its all about the positioning of the dog then why doesn't OFA step in and make sure that all the vets that submit x-rays are drilled on how important proper positioning is and make sure that they CAN properly position the dog before accepting x-rays from them?
This is one of the reasons why I perfer the Penn Hip method. Not just any vet can submit x-rays. I don't mean to sound degrading to any vets out there,(or to any radiologist (sp) either) but lets face it, most of us have come across vets that have no clue how important it really is.
To me its very simple. I would love to have more faith in OFA, since they have the data base and everyone uses them, however its to subjective to me. JMO

First, OFA does give advice to vets on proper posotioning and exposure. Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to water........

Second, you are blaming OFA for a problem that is not of their doing or under their control. They are a SERVICE organization and evaluate the films that are sent to them. One of their evaluations is of the film quality so submitting vets get some feedback on their technique. I have only had two films actually sent back as being impossible to evaluate. They really TRY to work with what is sent to them.

Once I figured out years ago what was required, I do not submit films that are not diagnostic and have the vet retake them. I usually don't go back to that vet again for x-rays either My current vet is really good at positioning and USUALLY on the density of the film, though a few have not been as crystal clear as I like (equipment is getting older). I am the first inspector in the "quality control" department and have the right to tell a vet that is taking x-rays at my request that I won't accept the product. We may have to haggle over the "redo" expense, but I simply will not send in a poor film again - it is a waste of the OFA fee. Most any breeder/owner that wants to take the time to learn what a good film should be and what is not diagnostic quality can advocate for themselves with a vet. Yes... the VET should know what is acceptable or not, but many will just try to "get by" with mediocre quality films rather than go to the troube and expense of retaking them. That is NOT a flaw with the OFA service - it is a product of human nature and lack of professional pride on the part of the vets. Don't confuse the two.

As to subjective vs. objective that is another debate for another day. I have tried to just stay out of discusssion about PennHIP since anyone who has read my posts in the past knows my position. I even wrote an article some years ago explaining that objectivity is just shared subjectivity. If anyone is interested email privately and I will send a link

I am NOT accusing OFA of anything. I am sure they suggest to vet the importance of positining. They COULD be a little more adamant and REQUIRE vets to send in samples and or be TRAINED in positioning. That would give ME more faith. In my opinion, they could be more consistant in evaluatins.

But like everything no 2 people are going to always agree. You are just as entitled to your opinion as i am mine and I would never go so far as to say one opinion is rught and the other wrong. Its just opinions, and its what makes us all unique.
I hope everyone has a great day and now has soemthing to think about.

To Maureen G.

You must be very content in your knowledge of everything. You even tried to get me on a technicality. Listen lady, you do not have to be a vet or read the literature to know the OFA system has serious flaws. The answer to this is not found in expensive or over-reaching studies - it is found here - read the posts, ask people who take their dog to a "special" vet for OFA's. How good can this be?

I will answer for you = it is not good. it is subjective and as such cannot be the be all and end all in hip conformation evaluation. A three dimensional joint photographed in 2 dimension reviewed by 3 human beings.

How many variables does one need to find this process to be unworthy of all the BS?

You jumped to another conclusion about me being a fan of penn hip. I am a fan of eliminating human error and variance.

From what is printed, the PennHIp format is less subjective.

I think if we tried - every single dog evaluated could come back OFA Passing. Not true with Penn-Hip.

"I am sure they suggest to vet the importance of positining. They COULD be a little more adamant and REQUIRE vets to send in samples and or be TRAINED in positioning."

Actually, they can't. It is not in their defined mission and is not their responsibility. Take your complaint to the vet schools, who SHOULD train the vets in both positioning and x-ray evaluation - including recognition of diagnostic quality. Complain to the technicians that train vets how to use their equipment, but don't assure that the information is applied. There are a lot of people who COULD do a better job of training the vets who take the films - but it is not the privilege or responsibility of OFA to do so.

Since OFA provides a service for VETERINARIANS as well as the public, they can not refuse to accept submittals from vets that do a poor job. They CAN send them back as not diagnostic quality if they are really terrible, but as a service organization, they do try to provide orthopedic evaluation if possible.

PennHIP is an independent organization that DOES train and certify vets in the specific use of their equipment and techniques. It does not provide an evaluation service for orthopedic films from other sources or of anything but HIPS - it is the basis of their name, study, charter, etc. You really can not compare the two organizations. From their charter and purpose to their staff and services, they are as different as day and night.

You are correct. They are different as night and day.
One is objective measurement based on x-rays taken by
trained vets; the other is subjective opinion based
on whatever the vet sends. Different as night and
day.

You wrote:
You must be very content in your knowledge of everything. ... I think if we tried - every single dog evaluated could come back OFA Passing.

Please look up the definition of "hyperbole" - it has no place in a serious discussion.

you do not have to be a vet or read the literature to know the OFA system has serious flaws. The answer to this is not found in expensive or over-reaching studies - it is found here - read the posts, ask people who take their dog to a "special" vet for OFA's. How good can this be?

Actually, if you DO read the literature, you would know that OFA is respected worldwide as one of the TOUGHEST hip schemes. I know people in this country that have their films evaluated overseas because it is tough to meet OFA standards. I will take the word of the experts and the scientific articles over the opinions expressed by people who are not trained in the field. If you allow the opinions and advice of those with no credentials or relevant training to sway your choices, how good can THAT be???

I'm not sure what you mean by people using "special" vets for their films, but it is a GREAT idea. Use the people who are experts at getting correct positioning and excellent exposure. The quality of your evaluation is dependent on the quality of the film! How do you compare this to people who use PennHIP vets - aren't they "special" as well??? I don't know where this statement fits into your condemnation of OFA in any regard. OFA is NOT responsible for the training of the vets or the quality of the films - they just try to evaluate what is sent to them if possible.

A three dimensional joint photographed in 2 dimension reviewed by 3 human beings.

What is wrong about that? PennHIP uses a 2 dimensional photograph that is reviewed by ONE human being. Is that better???? How??? Why??? Most other hip schemes around the world also have only one evaluator. Same questions - is it better, how and why?

You see... the questions and answers are not so simple. How many variables does one need to evaluate ANY of these processes? They all have their flaws and features. What is the alternative...do nothing? Of course, not. We each choose the system that has the MOST value for our use and priorities in breeding. Whether the tool you select is OFA of Penn or BVA or (fill in the blank), is not the MOST important factor. How you USE that tool is the measure of its validity and value. As long as you STICK TO ONE TOOL and assess your outcomes with a plan for reaching your eventual goal, you will be successful.

You jumped to another conclusion about me being a fan of penn hip. I am a fan of eliminating human error and variance.

If you want to eliminate human errors, then you have to eliminate the humans who make them. Period. PennHIP evaluations depend on humans to make the measurements - which is not as clinically objective as you might imagine. They have a 2-dimensional shadow snapshot and have to decide precisely WHERE to measure in order to get the numerical evaluation. This is a subjective decision - a trained one, but still subjective. The OFA evaluators also take similar measurements (angles, lengths, thicknesses, etc.) in order to reach their decisions - trained decisions, but still subjective. The most important difference is that OFA ADMITS that humans can err and requires three trained persons to complete the same evaluation process in order to provide a consensus opinion to the vet and owner. To me, THAT is far more objective that basing my choices on information from a single human - no matter how skilled.

From what is printed, the PennHIp format is less subjective.

You might also want to be mindful that the printed material you are reading about PennHIP may not be unbiased. Most published data that I have seen is produced by the system and the people in it. Unlike many published articles and comparisons of OFA evaluations/methods that have been done over the years by INDEPENDENT researchers, most of the published data about PennHIP is from their own researchers. How they view themselves is strictly subjective - how other experts see PennHIP is really more relevant. I'm sure we would all like to read an UNBIASED evaluation of PennHIP in a peer-reviewed veterinary journal that uses independent researchers - particularly any from other countries like some of the articles about OFA. Can you please give some references? I prefer FACT based information over anecdotal reports or unsupported personal opinions.

If you truly read research, you would easily be able to find this kind of support for PennHIP.

Please... post the references. I have only found articles written by the principles in the PennHIP organization itself. I don't consider that to be terribly impartial when they are "selling" a service.

I'm glad we concur in this, even if I don't share your reasons.

While PennHIP does take measurements to determine the DI on x-rays, the process may not be as "objective" as you think. A human still has to determine WHERE to measure and select the landmarks to compare. That is based on one person's subjective observation - trained, but subjective. OFA evaluators also take measurements (landmarks, length, width, etc.) in order to arrive at their conclusions - trained, but subjective. So, this begs the question of whether the decision of what and where to measure by one expert is more "objective" than a consensus of opinions reached by measured evaluations of three experts

I commend PennHIP on the excellent training they provide for both vets and techs. Since they are marketing a product and process, it is important to train those who will use it. Unfortunately, these trained people are still humans and prone to human errors. Some films sent to PennHIP have to be redone because they are not of diagnostic quality - this happened to a fellow breeder on this forum. If there is too much pressure on the joint, there can be excess cavitation that interferes with the evaluation. If there is too little pressure, the laxity can not be measured accurately by the system. Either way, subjective interpretation of the instructions can result in poor films. I think what bothers me most about films that must be redone is that the vets did not recognize that the x-ray was NOT of diagnostic quality before it was sent. This also happens with OFA submittals, so training is not the only answer to the problem of mediocre films that generate questionable readings.

It seems that few people have PennHIP films redone, whereas many people have OFA studies done 2 or 3 times for a dog. If you will look in LabraData for the PennHIP reports that have been done several times on the same dog, I think you may be surprised at the variance in the DI numbers. The one listed there shows a DI on one hip of .51 at 8 months and .38 at 5 years. I do know of several other dogs that have been done as pups and redone as adults and the DIs are very different. If this system is so "objective" and the developers recommend using it for early screening to make long-term choices, how can the DIs on the same dog be so different? Were the x-rays of equal quality? Did different people decide where to make the measurements? Did the dog's hips improve that much? As you can see, it is not all so cut-and-dried objective as some believe.

So... although we agree that from purpose to practice PennHIP and OFA are dramatically different in form and function, I do not see that either has figured out how to overcome the problem of human nature and human error that keep both systems from providing flawless answers to perplexing questions about hips.

"The one listed there shows a DI on one hip of .51 at 8 months and .38 at 5 years. I do know of several other dogs that have been done as pups and redone as adults and the DIs are very different. If this system is so "objective" and the developers recommend using it for early screening to make long-term choices, how can the DIs on the same dog be so different?"

Ah Maureen, finally something I can agree with and I wanted to make that point as well!
I personally believe this is because dogs GROW at different rates, in different ways.

I do NOT agree with Penn Hips claim to be able to evaluate puppies for CHD at such young ages, NOR do I agree with OFA prelim's being accurate either.
I have witnessed passing prelim's turn into HD perm's and failing prelims turn into passing perms!

I do not believe anyone can evaluate the structure accurately of a growing animal.
I believe this is precisely why OFA will not give a perm reading until a minimum of 24 months of age!
Prelims are a good tool, but JUST a tool.
There are of course cases where a prelim can tell you with 100% accuracy that a dog's hips are NOT good. For instance, if there is obvious DJD, or no hip socket, or missing ball, etc.
But there are also cases where you need to have some patience and allow dog to fully mature in order to come up with an accurate evaluation.
Your example with the Penn Hip scores proves this, yet again - thank you!!!

You're welcome! I have had hips change dramatically - both directions. Nothing surprises me after 40 years of this

I gave an example earlier of a dog that was normal at age 2,but dysplastic (and moderately so) at age 4. I gave another example of a bitch that was borderline at age 2 on first film, but passed with a fair a few months later and probably would have received a good if I would have waited another two months. These are not my only personal examples, but they do serve the purpose of demonstrating the point.

Living systems change over time - humans, trees, dogs, etc. All hip x-rays are "snapshots" in time and represent only that moment. We choose which moments to evaluate based on our motives and priorities. If we chose other moments, our evaluations AND decisions might be different. It is all a crapshoot and we just have to hope the dice are not TOO loaded

Why should I do your research for you? It's out there.

Aren't you the same Maureen Gamble who bought the EIC
test hook-line-and-sinker based on research done only
at UMN?

Read the website. PennHIP says that x-rays taken before
2 years old do not correlate precisely over all dogs with those taken at 2 years or after. It's on the website under reliability.

The PennHIP correlation, however, is far better than those evaluations done by OFA before 2 years old.

The adult x-ray evaluation of the dog in the LabraData database does not correlate REMOTELY with the one done at 8 months. If there is validity in the system, one would expect a LITTLE continuity. Since your assumed mane is "someone who has redone PennHIP", please share with us the results of the two reports.

As to your second statement, you forgot the "in my opinion". I participated in an 8-year study with Michigan State in which we did evaluations at 8 weeks and through to 2 years. All but 2 of the pups evaluated as "within normal limits" at 8 weeks passed OFA at 2 years. Both of those were unilaterally affected. So.... IN MY OPINION and EXPERIENCE there are better methods for doing early evaluation than either OFA of PennHIP.

If you get your dog's ofa done at 23 months and 30 days, it is not final.

Penn hip does use a jig to position the dogs precisely each time.

how come you can get different ofa results with different readers, different vets taking the films different forms of anesthesia?

Why is an OFA graded Excellent, Good or Fair all being normal? Does excellent represent something we all should strive for. Does that make the dog move better? Is it a better prediction for future degenerative disease?

How come we still have dogs with hips issues after so many generations? If CHD was that heritable, we should be able to erradicate it in a few generations.

Two excellent dogs can produce fair or dysplastic hips.

The jury is still out on this one folks.

Read the website, Maureen. If you understood correlations, you would know that you
can't draw the conclusions you just drew .

Thank you all for your replies. Susan, you were correct. After reading your post, I inquired and was told the original submission was poorly positioned and that after the 6 month waiting period, another xray facility was selected and the results were sent in to OFA and the dog recieved a fair. Apparently that wasn't good enough so xrays were resubmitted from yet another facility several months later, and the dog came up OFA good.

In this case, the twice resubmission of xrays from 2 different vet facilities makes me wonder and sends up a little bit of a red flag to me. I think I will still steer clear of this dog and go to another stud dog. It just seems like going to extremes to me, and you would think fair as OK as it is considered a normal OFA reading.

Maybe I am being too picky but I just thought going further to get the "good" was a bit odd.

Because if you had to put up with the BS of half of the people on the forum, you wouldn't ever put out your shingle to take OFA's, Penn Hip, etc.

I use both modalities and they are just a tool...... variabilities in both.
I once had a dog who was PennHip by Dr. G. Smith himself when I worked at PENN - the dog was in the 97% percentile. My OFA's were good.
Again, nothing but a tool.



"So, IF its all about the positioning of the dog then why doesn't OFA step in and make sure that all the vets that submit x-rays are drilled on how important proper positioning is and make sure that they CAN properly position the dog before accepting x-rays from them?
This is one of the reasons why I perfer the Penn Hip method. Not just any vet can submit x-rays. I don't mean to sound degrading to any vets out there,(or to any radiologist (sp) either) but lets face it, most of us have come across vets that have no clue how important it really is."

I read the website, I understand correlations (and statistics, etc., etc., etc.). I do not understand how you can think for one moment that the hip DIs of the dog I gave as an example "correlate" in any way. The 8-month old film was rated .48L and .52R. The 5-year old film was .41L and .38R. Not only did the hips improve, but over time the "lax" hip became better than the other. These readings do not "correlate", no matter how you choose to define the word.

You avoided the one question that was relevant - since you had a second PennHIP evaluation done, please share your two sets of scores. Were they similar? Did the hips change much? Which way? Inquiring minds want to see examples.

"This is one of the reasons why I perfer the Penn Hip method. Not just any vet can submit x-rays. "

However, not all the films submitted to PennHIP are of diagnostic quality. If so, why are some rejected and have to be redone? As I mentioned earlier, even a well-trained "expert" can take less than diagnostic quality x-rays. The real question in my mind is why do these so called experts not KNOW the film is of poor quality? Training is not the whole answer for the problem of poor x-rays.