I'm a bit puzzled by a 6-month prelim report I just received from OFA (mom is OFA excellent, dad is OFA good). The report has the moderate hip dysplasia box checked, but only the subluxation box checked. So if there is no remodeling, how can the hips be moderate? I'll call Dr. Keller in the morning and see what he tells me. This is a bitch puppy already spayed, so no impact to my breeding program, other than relatives, but am perplexed as to the grading based solely on subluxation.

6 months old maybe that is why. sounds like a vet talked a pet person into this while spaying too early anyway. Did you see the positioning and x rays yourself?

From http://www.vet.ksu.edu/depts/vmth/sa.surgery/HipDysplasia.htm

"Radiographic (X-ray) changes associated with hip dysplasia range from subluxation of the femoral head to severe degenerative joint disease (arthritis). Animals less than 10 months of age often exhibit only varying degrees of subluxation (figure 1). Clinical significance of the degree of subluxation is based on breed, age, and clinical signs of the dog. Generally, subluxation where <25% of the head of the femur is in the acetabulum on ventrodorsal radiographs is considered severe and leads to rapid development of secondary degenerative joint disease. Milder degrees of subluxation may also lead to degenerative joint disease. Animals older than 10 months of age develop radiographic changes of degenerative joint disease at varying rates depending on the degree of subluxation."

Hmm, any idea if this is the same panel who was on in early June? I got my first mild HD, unilateral, on a girl who was over 3 years old. Prelims had looked good. Finals didn't look great, but I thought I'd have a Fair, in comparison to an aunt with a Fair in the line. There is NO remodeling or arthritis. She was in between seasons. Had had a couple incidents in last year of walking on wire crates to try and reach stuff put up high and falling off, getting leg hung up. I'm still chewing on what to do. Shoulda woulda otta have sent in prelims, and shoulda woulda otta done her finals sooner. Was done without anesthesia, in a health clinic setting, so not sure if it's films, her genetics, different food, and/or her accidents.

Other than to satisfy your curiosity, does it really matter? She's dysplastic. Move on.

The excuses people can come up with. It's genetic hands down. If you think it's anything else you are sadly mistaken and only fooling yourself. Study genetics and you'll understand.

Yes, we want everyone to pass all the time everytime but it doesn't happen. Prelims can change.

It's the way with polygenic genes. There will never be anything other than genetics at play.

Your first mistake was doing the pre-lim since Keller is the only one that sees the x-rays. I think the grade given depends on his mood of the day. My experience is that he is extremely inconsistent. Who made him the x-ray God anyway? Why would you trust "one" person's opinion. Do we do that for the final OFAs? I think not. We allow 3 to decide. I would rethink the use of pre-lims in your breeding program.

And based on the criteria you gave, don't waste the time and money on Pennhip either. Foreign evaluations must be ignored as well. They all use a single evaluator and one opinion (not a consensus). Whatever system you use other than OFA at age 2 or after, it is still just one human's decision about what to measure and where to measure from, regardless of the country, person or method.

I have found the directors and prelim readers at OFA to be extremely consistent. Their opinions may not be consistent with yours, but they are very predictable if you compare them over time. A prelim is just a peak into one possible future. That's why in this country, we put off final decisions until at least two years of age and get three radiologists to grade the films. It gives a better basis for making long-term breeding decisions.

Exactly, Subluxation

I think the point from the OP is a 6 month old Pre Lim. Bones are still growing and way too early to determine what the Officials will be. Alot of things can be going on. Usually 18 months would be an ideal time to do it to determine a more accurate final reading.

I got the impression that the OP didn't know that subluxation IS the method of evaluating hip dysplasia on young animals. Bone remodeling takes place later as the bones continue to grow. That is why I gave the link to the vet school page. If you want to know what you really have, wait until the dog is an adult at 24 months or even older. Anything before that is just an educated guess based on documented canine growth patterns. If you don't want to wait, then get a good understanding of what the experts are looking for on young, growing dogs.

See what happens by 2 years old if you don't believe. My experience is there will be plenty of DJD to be seen by then, due to the subluxation.

PennHIP will do an evaluation at 6 months that is more accurate than OFA's evaluation at 6 months. PennHIP is a measurement and statistical analysis, not an educated guess. The PennHIP measurement at 6 months is not completely correlated with the measurement at 24 months, but it will help you decide if you want to run on the puppy.

Did you see the x-rays yourself? Do the puppy buyers want money back because you guarantee hips for a certain amount of time?

For those of you with blind faith in the validity of OFA readings, here is a personal anecdote:
My boy ( now deceased) was prelimmed at 10 months. Two local veterinarians read the x-rays. Both said Mild HD. OFA said Borderline and his final results at two years old were OFA Good. Do I still do prelims, yes. . . but when the dog is closer to 1 1/2 years old.

For those of you with blind faith in OFA readings. . . every time you resubmit x-rays to OFA and get a different reading, (positive or negative), you just saw subjectivity in action.

but, PennHip is not always a good predictor of what the future holds. I had my boy done - prelims and PennHip - at 1 yr and his rating was 35R/40L in the 70th percentile and OFA prelim rating of good.

At 2 years old, he has mild djd in the RIGHT hip, due to subluxation (remember - his right hip was the lower of the two PennHip DIs at one year), and barely a fair rating in the left.

All of these certifications can be seen on his Labradata file - Fenwyck's Never Again

The only true way to tell what your dog's final rating is going to be is to wait until he/she is two and submit them to OFA. I agree with previous posters that a consensus of three evaluators is a much better determination than one person's opinion.


Susan Mouw

Everything in life is subjective. This list is a good example.

If you think PennHIP is better, think again. It may involve measurements, etc., BUT those measurements are made by a human who has to determine what and where to measure. It is all subjective.

What makes OFA a cut above the rest is that they understand humans are fallible and have differences of opinion - even experts. They chose a consensus methodology so that the final results are likely to be more objective than any other system. No other hip rating scheme does this - including PennHIP.

So, as I said earlier, if you are going to go to the expense and trouble of prelim x-rays, then educate yourself about how the ratings are done and decide how much weight you place on a single opinion. Dogs grow and change - which is why OFA doesn't give certificates until after two years of age. Some hips get better with maturity, some get much worse. If you are going to nit pick and put down the evaluations of experts in the field when the results don't suit you, then just stop doing prelims. Clearly they are of no value to you.

I'll never trust OFA again.
I have a male who was nice - so at age 16 months I decided to have his hip preliminary x-rays done. His report came back mild, subluxation. I was so shocked that I called other breeders in my area and we talked about this. One breeder convinced me that after she saw this male moving in the ring that there's no way that he could have a hip problem and she conviced me to redo the x-ray at another clinic 3 hours away where she met me. We redid the x-rays and resubmitted them. Guess what - 22 days in between both x-rays...the first was mild the second was excellent! So - you tell me the Dr. Keller is inconsistant - 5 grades difference in 22 days? DAH! My call on this is if the first set of x-rays were that bad - reject the x-rays not the dog. I don't really think that the man understands that many dogs futures are held in balance based on his rating. I for one will never feel the same about OFA again. I have no trust in their practices and don't hold their practices very highly at all. Why not have a certification program on how to do xrays for OFA that are correct instead of accepting any vet or techs attempts to x-ray a dog?

I had a very similar problem years back. Mine went from moderate to severe up to OFA Excellent also. This happened months later and were done by a different vet.

The 2nd vet did not say he was resubmitting as he didn't do the original radiographs. I was told they don't always look to see if the dog had x-rays submitted prior.

I don't know if it's always OFA readings itself or always the placement of the dog for the x-rays. I lean towards poor placements. The problem I see existing is OFA does not seem to send back incorrect placement radiographs. That is where Dr. Keller and OFA are wrong for sure.

A certification program sounds great but I doubt it will ever happen. All OFA needs to do is rate the x-rays as *poor placement resubmit new films *.

As far as prelims, I don't do them for my own Labs. I never did and never plan on it. I also don't breed to stud-dogs that only have prelims anymore. I did 2 times years ago and both times finals were fails, same stud-dog owner-breeder.

When I hear of the young dogs being bred today before or after prelims I can't for the life of me understand it.

Susan, With all due respect for your willingness to try PennHIP, I think perhaps you do not fully understand PennHIP.

First, the correlation between one year and two years is not 100%; it is about 90%, which might be good enough to make a rough guess about whether to run on a dog. But you cannot make as good a prediction for a one year evaluation as you can from a two year evaluation.

Second, PennHIP measures "a" risk factor for DJD. It does not measure every risk factor; it measures only laxity. Truly this risk factor is an important one (explaining more than any other risk factor why one dog gets DJD and another does not); but PennHIP never says that their approach measures "all" the risk factors, especially because weight and activity significantly affect whether a dog will develop DJD.

Third PennHIP MEASURES laxity rather than than rely on subjectively eyeballing the xray. Yes, even measurement is subjective, but measuring does increase the accuracy in the same way that using a yard stick increases accuracy over eyeballing a distance.

Finally, the difference between .35 and .4 is not large enough to override all the other factors that come into play in the formation of DJD, especially when you are using a one year evaluation instead of a two year evaluation. Unless the PennHIP is less than .3, you really can't say that the dog will not develop DJD.

I applaud your willingness to try another method than OFA, but I encourage you to explore further what PennHIP may have to offer your breeding program. PennHIP's predictive abilities are best seen in the long term; by using PennHIP carefully over 3 generations, you can actually improve the hip health of all your puppies. You have to think beyond measuring one dog to get a "clearance" and think about using a tool which over the long run can improve hip health overall.

BRDR:

Thank you for your somewhat condescending compliment. I think I understand PennHip pretty well, considering I have only used it once. However, being the information gatherer I am by nature, when I consented to getting Conner's PennHip done, I researched and read everything I could about PennHip and what it can and cannot do. I may have stayed at the Holiday Inn Express the night before Conner's testing, as well.

I understand the distraction index and that it is just one part of the total picture when attempting to predict a dog's predilection towards djd in the hip joints. I also understand that PennHip actually provides a non-subjective measurement; which, being the programmer ANALyst that I am, made me quite happy. I like calibration and measurements. I like numbers. Call me weird.

Just because I don't agree with your conclusions or use of a tool, doesn't mean I don't understand it.

Susan can anyone tell you anything? you're such an expert on it ALL. That post to you was so nice and well written and you just had to get the word condescending into it. It was not and you DO NOT know 1/4 of what you think you do, less actually, sorry but JMO

Anon:

And we're all entitled to our opinions.

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. We have you pegged, Anon.

OFA, PennHip, EIC, Optigen, etc are tools. We deal with living beings who are not only genetically predisposed, but environmentally affected as well. Name calling, know-it-alls, and other foolishness do not let us discuss the use of tools in breeding programs. Each breeder makes individual decisions about their program. Just because you are an owner, does not make you a breeder, and just because you are a breeder or an owner does not make anyone an expert. "Crap happens" is a true-ism, and no one intentionally breeds to have bad things happen.

Well said

Grumpy Old Breeder] "Crap happens" is a true-ism, and no one intentionally breeds to have bad things happen.
********************************************************

I don't know about that. Seems pretty intentional to knowingly breed carrier to carrier.

Nasty person. How about a little understanding. You should not own Labs.

Grumpy,
I think you are the wisest, sanest person on this forum.

As clear as day.

Susan, I had no intention to be condescending. From what you said in your post, I concluded that you must not fully understand PennHIP. I disagreed not with your decision but your information.

You also have experience from one dog and research. I have many dogs, many years, and several generations of PennHIP'd dogs.

This is the most useful piece of advice in your post. People who expect PennHIP to be accurate at 4 months or any age before the dog is fully mature are just borrowing trouble. I don't know how or why so many breeders fool themselves into believing that any sort of film for a puppy is not subject to change - and sometimes major change - as the dog grows and matures. There is a reason OFA won't certify younger than 2 years. PennHIP readings on puppies ought to be marked "preliminary" as well. It would prevent a lot of misunderstanding and misdirected anger.

If you want to know what a dog will be as an adult, wait until it is an adult to evaluate it!

From the PennHip Website:

PennHIP incorporates a new method for evaluating the integrity of the canine hip. It is accurate in puppies as young as 16 weeks of age. It has great potential to lower the frequency of CHD when used as a selection criterion.

PennHIP vs OFA

A new scientific paper has just been published in the current issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association entitled "Evaluation of the relationship between Orthopedic Foundation for Animals' hip joint scores and PennHIP distraction index values in dogs" (pg 532-541). This study shows that dogs judged as "normal" by the OFA can have clinically important passive hip joint laxity as determined by the PennHIP method. The results suggest that OFA scoring can underestimate susceptibility to osteoarthritis in dogs, which may impede progress in reducing or eliminating hip dysplasia through breeding.

Article: Click here to read the abstract and to gain access to the full article.

Video: Click here to view a short video featuring Dr. Smith explaining the results and their significance.

Bibliography: JAVMA, September 1, 2010, Vol. 237, No. 5, Pages 532-541

PennHIP is one tool. The authors prove to their satisfaction that their method measures what it is supposed to measure: laxity. I believe that PennHIP offers one way out of hip problems, but not the only way to track hips and do clearances. I do love the pedigree database of OFA! I will think about getting a full copy of the article, although if copyright reverts to the authors, they should put it on the PennHIP site. Does the full article go on to say that the looser hips, as determined by PennHIP, on the OFA Excellent and OFA Good dogs then developed arthritis? Or not?

Charlotte, A whole body of research over decades has been examining the effectiveness of PennHIP in measuring laxity as a risk factor for DJD. Statistically laxity is associated with an increased risk of developing DJD--even OFA says this on their website. To the extent that OFA hip evaluations do not accurately and consistently measure laxity, they miss an important risk factor for developing DJD.

Although a great deal of the research about the effectiveness of PennHIP has been conducted by PennHIP, researcher Dr. Rory Todhunter at Cornell has been using PennHIP in his research to locate genetic areas responsible for producing DJD. Hhe has located two genome areas that contribute to risk for developing hip DJD and is working to define specific genes.

Not all tools for breeding are created equal, some have more research support for their effectiveness than others.

The problem is not OFA and their subjective results, the problem is the quality of the film. The only thing that I fault OFA for is not slamming those mediocre films in front of the Vet that took them , from one professional to another.Does OFA have a seminar for VETS to inform them exactly what they want? OR are the few words of directions on the paperwork all the educaton they receive?
Vets claiming to have expertise in positioning and quality of film for OFA need to be educated on exactly what OFA wants in a film. WE need to do a little research to find those VETS that know what OFA is looking for and be darn sure they produce the correct film for them. There should be a data system that tells us what Vets are actually qualified to do OFA films, so we can make educated choices too.

I'm not quibbling about the value of PennHIP for showing laxity. I am asking what is NEW in the article. Is it the length of time that they have done the study as opposed to previous articles and seminars? Is it proof of DJD in the higher OFA rankings correlating with laxity, or not? In an admittedly tiny population from my breeding, I have checked dogs in two breeds at late ages, one at 100 months, and not found DJD, even in the Fairs. However, that is not a study, that is just me checking on how my lines of dogs are aging. I am trying to learn what is new about this article. Too many vets don't even subscribe to this journal. If it is that new, perhaps the article will be or is on PennHIP site instead of just the abstract. That of course depends on copyright agreement with the journal.

I think if we go back to the original post, you can see that OFA feels too much laxity (subluxation in this case) is related to hip dysplasia. I don't think any vet would dispute this. It is highly likely that the dog in question will eventually have DJD. This is the opinion of OFA and probably PennHIP would agree based on laxity. That is not what bothers me about the whole topic.

My real concern here is why should we make such a rush to judgement? If the dog is not symptomatic, why break out the crystal ball? Regardless of the brand name on that device, any radiograph of a puppy will tell you only what that puppy is today and try to "predict" the eventual status as an adult.

I'm not going to breed mine until they are adults anyway, why would I need to evaluate their hips before a year? Sure, there are circumstances like a pending sale or large investment (for a handler, trainer, etc.) that might make me want to check the current status, but in general I don't need to know the adult status of a dog until it is an ADULT! Regardless of the tool used (OFA, OVC, PennHIP, etc.), any number, grade, or opinion reflects what can be seen at a single moment in time. The younger the dog is at that moment, the less useful the prediction will be.

Patience is the most important virtue for any dog person. This is certainly an area where we could stand to practice it more frequently.

As someone else posted, it is already widely accepted by PennHIP, OFA, vets, and researchers that laxity is a significant risk factor for DJD in dogs.

The study (according to the abstract) is a "diagnostic test evaluation study" meaning that the study is evaluating how well the OFA measures laxity by comparing it to PennHIP.

The conclusion is "that OFA scoring of HE radiographs underestimated susceptibility to osteoarthritis in dogs."

I don't know if you consider the underestimation a new finding, but the journal does. The fact that the OFA evaluation is so widely used for breeding suggests that many breeders will be surprised to learn that OFA underestimates the susceptibility to DJD. Or then again, maybe someone could say that breeders use OFA because they have known that the OFA evaluation underestimates susceptibility to DJD. I prefer to believe that breeders simply haven't known that OFA underestimates laxity.

So is this finding new to you or not? I can't say.

BRDR: I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you offline. It is apparent from your posts in this thread that this topic is one with which you are quite familiar. I am sure there is much I could learn from your many years of experience.

But sharing anecdotal experience in this forum under my real name is foolish and counter-productive, so while I welcome your private reply, I will not be posting further in this thread.

Thanks. Have you read the full article, BRDER? Maybe you don't know what the full article says or it is not a question answered in the article: Is there proof of DJD in the higher OFA rankings (Exc. and Good) correlating with higher laxity, or not? Maybe no one knows, yet. I like the idea of a genetic test for hip dysplasia, but I do not expect to see that in my breeding lifetime. Someday.

Meanwhile, we can also try to also monitor the environmental effects, age at films, and look for epigenetic factors in our own small breeding populations.

Charlotte, An abstract is a concise version of the entire article. It was not a longitudinal study of the development of DJD, although such a study was done by PennHIP some years ago with 49 Lab puppies from 7 litters who were followed throughout their lives and evaluated with both PennHIP and OFA. (The study was funded by Purina and also looked at how weight impacted DJD).

Laxity is laxity, whether it occurs in OFA E or OFA Severely dysplastic. Laxity is a risk factor for developing DJD, according to OFA as well as PennHIP.

That being said, I think you may be missing what I find to be some of the most interesting findings of the study:


Results—14% (60/439) of dogs had hip joints scored as excellent by OFA standards; however, 52% (31/60) of those had a DI ≥ 0.30 (range, 0.14 to 0.61). Eighty-two percent of (183/223) dogs with OFA-rated good hip joints had a DI ≥ 0.30 (range, 0.10 to 0.77), and 94% (79/84) of dogs with OFA-rated fair hip joints had a DI ≥ 0.30 (range, 0.14 to 0.77). Of all dogs with fair to excellent hip joints by OFA standards, 80% (293/367) had a DI ≥ 0.30. All dogs with OFA-rated borderline hip joints or mild, moderate, or severe hip dysplasia had a DI ≥ 0.30 (range, 0.30 to 0.83).

I've known that OFA evaluations were so poorly correlated with PennHIP evaluations that predict OFA from the PennHIP or vice versa.

But the results in this study surprised me. At least one (maybe more) dog rated as borderline, mild, moderate, or severe by OFA had hips that PennHIP rated as .3 (a very good rating). On the other hand, dogs rated by OFA as good and excellent had PennHIP DIs as low as .61 and .77 (not in the PennHIP recommended breeding range for Labs). Astonishing!

Yes, I can read articles and I know what an abstract is. Most of us do, with the difference that I, like some other posters, have written and edited them! I remember the longitudinal Purina study. I am not aware if there was any follow up in the decades of material cited in the abstract published this month in JAVMA. Abstracts leave out things--they have to, as they are not the whole article, but what is left out is subjective.

Given the discrepancies between the two authorities on and for hip clearances in the USA, such as those you cited, my question still stands, and relates to that of the OP. I guess we don't know that yet--does the increased laxity lead to truly degenerative changes in passing grades of OFA, especially Excellent and Good? . But what percentage? Maybe it is in a table somewhere in the article, maybe not. Do we know WHY we are to trust one authority and not the other when their views are somewhat different? OR if we add schemes from other countries, is it several blind men looking at one elephant, or a very large mountain of Labrador data?

I don't have an axe to grind here. Please understand that. It would be another good study, though, if it was not done here! Maybe followup on a Purina colony, plus service dog animals already PennHIPPED?

Good, now I understand what you are asking and your perspective. I also have written abstracts, and I am fairly certain that the data you are asking would not be left out of an abstract merely because abstracts are abbreviated. It would be too important to be left out.

However, it is possible that such data was collected during the data collection for the published study; if such data was collected, it would be might be part of another and yet unpublished study. Researchers like to get as many studies from their collection as possible, and journals don't like to repeat previously published work.

I am dubious, however, that the data you are asking would be collected. Though the sample size is small for answering such a question, it would be large for collecting long term longitudinal data, which is extremely difficult to collect--as you might well imagine. I don't think the current funding exists to repeat the Purina study, which was an amazing study.

Why one approach is trusted over another may relate to the research supporting one over the other. The clearest examples of the research support for laxity and PennHIP has been done in breeds where hip DJD is nearly nonexistent and tight hips are the norm, e.g., greyhounds, Borzoi.

Not only is there research demonstrating that PennHIP effectively measures laxity and that laxity is highly correlated with development of subsequent DJD, Rory Todhunter at Cornell is now using PennHIP (and a similar approach he developed) to locate specific gene areas related to development of DJD. He is using breeding colonies of cross bred Labs and greyhounds to locate the areas and has published research of his data.

Even though we may be a long ways from a genetic test, PennHIP is our current best way to evaluate genetic predisposition to DJD. So PennHIP is becoming the gold standard for laxity as a risk factor for DJD in research studies, even if breeders have not yet wholeheartedly adopted it as the gold standard.

So that

Charlotte, I wanted to add that the kind of predictive validity data you are wanting about the amount of DJD that occurs in various OFA rated dogs over their lives should have been collected by OFA. This is the kind of data that is crucial for understanding the usefulness of a test. Breeders adopted the test without knowing whether it predicted what would happen after the dog was two years old.