Hip dysplasia - Page 3

Jantie  :   Where do you get your info on VA Jeck  vom Noricum SchH3 1993 Bundesseiger  I have a german pedigree here .and am looking for the second one hidden somewhere in a folder...Please advise me where you find that info

Really bad positioning on that xray and the image is way too small.  I suspect the dog has unilateral mild to moderate HD, the head on the shallow side looks flattened, the rim of the acetabulum looks "cupped" and the neck appears to be thickening, but can't say for sure. I wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks this dog has normal hips unless I could see a better xray. It's certainly not a film I'd submit to the SV or OFA for an evaluation. It needs to be done again. The film isn't marked right or left either, OFA requires that, and the knees must be visible too. The exposure is good.

Sue-Ann I think you are referring to the Norberg angle? OFA measures that too. The OFA site say an NZ is the "approximate" of an OFA reading of mildy dysplastic. I know someone who imported an NZ  and the dog got a moderately dysplastic rating from OFA. Not a lot of consistency it seems and it really is confusing, isn't it? I wasn't aware that the hip conformation of the GSD is different from that of other breeds of the same size, that's good information. I'm sure OFA takes that into consideration as they do say "as compared to other dogs of the same breed and age". I've seen some giant breeds like Saints and Newfies get an OFA good or excellent on an xray that would be rated mildly dysplastic if it were a GSD instead. If I were a breeder I'd probably do as you do,  go with the SV at 12 months, the OFA at 24 and maybe another a few years later.

Hi Yellowrose! Always enjoy reading your remarks, you're a smart woman.

I know where you're heading for, so let me fill in the gap you're stumbling over:

"We also know Max comes over Jeck vom Noricum (through Visum of course), who is one of the most famous HD-3 doggies of all times."

In explanations about the pedigree people tend to skip one or more names to make a shortcut. Did not intend to fool anyone.

So one could say: Quantum comes over Jeck, skipping several generations.

Note that Visum (whom I left out, also only had an HD-2 result!)

For your information, as I know you like INPUT of the Third Kind: One of the best producers of all times if you talk "hips" would be Aly vom Vordersteinwald (Troll von der bösen Nachbarschaft). 52 % of his offspring got HD-1-hips. How about that for a producer? 

Take care!

Jan

ok on my pedigrees from germany on Vasha v Fleischerheim      Jeck v Noricum is the father of Mandi vom Haus Hetok and on the place for the hip   is  an    "a." ZUERKANNT   and his sz number is 1705812   having a littermate of Josie   and Judy

Where did you get the info of HD-3 ??????? I have him in several other pedigrees alsooo one is with Jeck bred with Gitte v Laacher-Haus to prod Apoli  who pro Nick  VA-1 1996 USA BUNDES------ in my black bitch   and Visum is Jecks son bred to Kelly and they are ggrsire and dam of my Rex from Bruno v arm----

Vasha's hips are OFA FAIR   and Jeck is second generation out   as  Mandi is Vasha's dam

Hi Blitzen,

If the same exact film is submitted to both OFA and Germany, there may be differences in the specific grade of pass or fail?  My contention is that they would either pass in both places or fail in both places.  Unless the films are identical a true comparrison cannot be made.  A film done in Germany at age 1 then OFA at a later date is subject to changes in positioning as well as any injury the dog may have suffered in the meantime.  Of course there is the other possibility that it's not the same dog (someone may have been dishonest along the way)?

Yes, GSDs as compared with other breeds have very different hips.  Yes, OFA claims to evaluate compared with dogs from the same breed and same age.  Even so I feel a better, more consistant result comes from the a-stamp program, which only assesses GSDs.  I've seen too many false readings from OFA to believe otherwise.  I'm yet to see something from Germany that I've disagreed, or my vet has diisagreed with.  I'm speaking strictly about films from dogs I own, have viewed and sent in myself.  If someone here has sent identical copies of a film and submitted to both places, I'd love to hear your experience?

OFA does promote itself.  In their statement that NZ equates to a displastic hip, I have not seen that to be the case.  As I mentioned above, I have only ever seen true mistakes come from OFA.

My practice of a-stamp at age 1, OFA at age 2 and resubmit if the dog is under anesthesia again for any other reason applies to my males.  We do Register of Excellence in HEALTH for our boys and OFA hips is one of the many health certs required.  For the girls, I am content with a-stamp at age 1 and redo hips after the bitches are done their breedings and are getting spayed, generally age 6.  In doing all my bitches...ALL my bitches, 100% a-normal, fast normal and NZ all got passes from OFA at the time of spay.  The worst I saw was from my NZ bitch who got OFA fair.  The others have done even better.  Certainly hips after a breeding career are not looking as good as they did at age 1. 

Hope this info and perspective are helpful :-)

Hi Sue-Ann, not only is your information helpful, it certainly casts a doubt in my mind about what I have always been told about dogs with NZ  hips. In some ways stating that NZ hips = mild HD and NZ dogs like Jeck produced more good hips than bad ones is giving license to those with mildly dysplastic dogs to use them in a breeding program. I think that is the wrong message to be sending to the average person breeding GSD's.  If an NZ is the equivilent of an OFA good or fair, then I have misunderstood the entire SV system of rating hips and I suspect I am not alone in that misunderstanding. I suppose one could say that there is a fine line between an OFA fair and and OFA rating of mildy dysplastic, so I guess that could go either way. However, if an NZ gets an OFA good, then I have to wonder what's going on with both of these readers. Was the SV wrong or was it the OFA's error. I think the age at the time of the xray would be important to know and whether ot not the dog was anesthesized. All I know for sure is that, when I was breeding, I went from getting puppies with severe crippling HD to litters that had none by in depth pedigree study and only breeding normals to normals. I've told this story many times before - 2 brothers both refused OFA clearance at 26 months. One in Alaska, one in Utah. Both vets said - no way, so the dogs were redone and both passed with goods, an upgrade of 3 levels. Go figure. Since then I like to see the xrays for myself.  And then to add to the confusion there in Penn Hip .

Anyone else submit  hip xrays to both the SV and OFA?

I don't think the difference between OFA fair and mild displasia is a fine line.  The opposite is true in my mind.  The difference between OFA fair and mild is light years apart.  Besides the fact that there is another rating in between (borderline) I have seen that although it's difficult to get vets to agree what is excellent, good or fair, they generally agree about what is normal (not displastic) vs what is displasia.  When displasia is present there is usually no doubt and everyone sees it clearly.  This is why I have the conviction a pass in Germany would also be a pass with OFA.  You can show the same vet the same xray and one day they may say fair, a week later and the same xrays shown to the same vet they may say it's good.  What they wouldn't do is say one day pass and the next week fail.  Reading xrays is very subjective...and opinions vary greatly.  The differences between normal (not displastic) and failing are always night and day.

Sue-Ann

PS When I say normal (not displastic) I am not refering to a-normal, but the condition of normal hips showing no evidence of HD and am including all passing scores...excellent, good, fair, a-normal, a-fast normal, and NZ.

i have to agree with the others who say the dog was not positioned properly.  the dog may have a problem, but i wouldn't jump to any conclusions before seeing a better film.

pjp

In my opinion as well, terrible positioning. I would have insisted an another film before leaving that day. To pay for that xray? Questionable because I'm not sure you can make any judgement on the dog's hips, the vet should have done another.

When the same 2 dogs can go from being mildy dysplastic one day to OFA good a month later, then its not hard to understand that evaluating hip xrays is an art, not a science. My dogs are certainly not the only 2 to fail on the first try and then get a certfication with a new xray. I've seen a lot of  hip xrays, maybe 100 or more and studied under a veterianry radiologist, and I can tell you without any hesitation that there are some that even a radiologist is not 100% sure about and are hesitant to call normal or mildly dysplastic.  I've personally seen 3 radiologists evalute the same xray, one said borderline, one mild, one OFA fair.  If they were OFA readers that dog would get a mild rating and no number. Maybe the SV has the same problem from time to time. NZ's get fairs, NZ's get moderately dysplastic; fast normals get OFA goods, fast normals get fairs. Dogs fail OFA with one xray, pass with another. Dogs get fairs with one xray, goods with a new one; goods go to excellents witha new xray. Happens all the time. Anyone see any consistency here? I don't.

The rating of mild dysplasia indicates a dog with shallow sockets, there is never any DJD per OFA guidelines. It is all about positioning and exposure and OFA does not always request another xray when they are sent a poor one.  It's up to the vet to know what he's doing and to the owner to refuse to accept a poorly positioned or exposed hip xray. The measurement of the Norberg angle plays a very big part in the rating a dog gets. If your vet does not know how to measure that angle, then he might not be able to make an accurate guess. Just because more than  half the ball is tightly seated in the socket does not necessarily mean the dog will get an excellent, it might get a good if that angle is not within the tolerance accepted for an excellent rating. Another overlooked fact is that the knees need to be on the film so the OFA readers can make sure that the techs taking that xray had the dog's knee rotated inwardly as that allows the ball to be seated as deeply as the socket will allow and they like to see the natural flat spot on the ball where the ligament attaches.