X-rays. What do you think? - Page 2

Neither dog is positioned correctly in either radiograph. But, all things considered both dogs show passing quality. How well would they pass? I think an O.F.A. "Good" for attainable for both. Reason-the acetebelum of each tibia seems smooth. The shape need not be a "ball" as long as the corners are very round and smooth. In correct positioning a tiny piece of the pelvic "horn" should hide behind each tibia, and the tibia of each leg must be parallel.

For the dog in the first radiograph I see smooth formation of each acetebelum and good coverage by the pelvis. I vote O.F.A. "Good" for the left-hand hip and O.F.A. "Fair" to O.F.A. "Good" for the right-hand hip. If one side is rated "Fair" then the dog gets a grade of "Fair".

For the dog in the second radiograph, I see what appears to be more laxity on the right-hand socket. But, that is a judgement call and is based on the right-hand thigh being pulled in too far. I do see more coverage by the pelvis on this dog, and that can tip the scales towards a definite O.F.A. "Good", possibly better.

DoRight, thank you for sharing these radiographs. Let us know the answer when we have guessed all over ourselves.

Regards,

Bob-O

boarder/mild

and

good

I also think:

borderline/mild

and

good

Lots of good points, especially Pia and Blitzen (according to what was explained to me by the second vet).  I can't hardly resist telling you now, so I will go ahead and let ya'll know that the first x-ray taken at 26 months, came back from OFA as "Moderate Dysplasia".  The second vet was recommended to me by a breeder that knows a lot about this stuff and said "he is the best doctor for hip x-rays", but he is expensive.  I went to him, old x-ray in hand.  He checked it prior to doing his x-rays, and said, without me telling him the OFA results, "Mild to Moderate HD".  I told him that they came back Moderate and he said it was apparent to him right away.

We then did the x-rays (2) with no anethesia and me assisting, and afterward, he stated that in his opinion, they would come back "fair to good".

I personally think they should be at least good, but then I thought the first time would come back as fair or at worst, borderline, so what the heck do I know.

Interesting that everyone here thus far, thinks that the positioning is bad (wrong).  I was impressed with how they turned out as compared to the first pic, and I was impressed with the second vets "expertise" and knowledge.

I have read others state on this site that bad positioning can make good hips look bad but that positioning can not make bad hips look good.  After going through all of this, I have doubts about that statement.  I think that it might be possible to contort the positioning to hide a slight fault, and make hips actually look better than they really are.   Just my humble opinion.

If I ever had to do this again, I would do it without sedation.  I felt that the sedation would have more laxity and without sedation, the dog, lying on his back and being pulled slightly from both ends, would "tighten up" and produce a better pic, but that is just an opinion based on common sense.

I will let you all know when I know.

Forgot to add that the OFA results of Moderate HD for the first x-ray, came back from OFA with only one note:  "subluxation"

Moderate HD, I never would have guessed. A dog with moderate HD is expected to have some DJD and remodeling, darned if I see any of that going on here. I wonder how they will feel when they pull out the first xray to compare it to the second one.

 The first xray they should have sent back and they look loose due to poor positioning and anethesia. think the dog has good hips but I have a feeling they came back Fair as they won't want to admit to that big of difference. I think OFA is a crap shoot and am thinking of going to Penn Hip.

Rezkat5,

Why push the envelope,

if your dogs already have A stamp,

why do them with OFA?

And I also think , the first to be borderline/mild,
And the second look  good.

I am waiting for my OFA results, they should be here
by the end of Oct.   My daughter took a picture of them on 
her cell phone, they looked good to me, I can't put them on here,
cause we don't have the wire to plug into the phone/computer,
Just as well, I'll wait!

I did hips & elbows,  cost $373.00
I'm bummin out if they don't pass...........

The glaring fact here is, if this dog gets an OFA certification with his second xray which is seems he will, then OFA was definitely wrong when they evaluated the first as moderately dysplastic. A dog just doesn't go from being moderately dysplastic to OFA normal. He should have received a number the first time around or at the least a borderline with the recommendation he be xrayed again in the future.

I wonder how many dogs have been lost to breeding programs and even put down due to OFA's stupid mistakes.  For sure if I were still breeding I'd make sure I retained a copy of an xray I sent to OFA and have a radiologist at a vet school like the University of PA evaluate it too.  I can understand that there is human error involved here, but to state a dog is moderately dysplastic only because of subluxation borders on negligence. OFA even says on their website that a moderately dysplastic dog has subluxation AND remodeling and arthritis. What a crock, no wonder some I know are no longer using them for certifications and are going with a radiologist  or trusting their own vet instead.  If I were still breeding, I'd be re-thinking using them at all, they make way too many dumb mistakes and their inconsistency is unacceptable to me. OFA needs a little competition as an incentive for them to monitor the skill of their readers. Knowing the history here and if DoRight indicated on the OFA application that this dog has been evaluted by them previously, he will probably get a fair to save face. I'd sure be contacting OFA after I got back my number and register a complaint about the rating on the first xray. If Do Right would be like some we all know, this dog would be dead based on an incorrect OFA evaluation.

Bottom line, folks, if you're going to use OFA exclusively, you'd better teach yourselves what a normal GSD hip looks like and how the xray is supposed to be positioned or you may well end up with no number on a dog with normal hips. I would love to know how the SV would have rated that first xray. Using them instead of OFA might be a good alternative. At one tiime OFA issued permanent numbers on dogs 12 months or older and there didn't seems to be anymore dysplasia then than now. Maybe theSV should raise their age for evalaution to 18 or 24 months, but I still think I'd take their word over OFA's and I never thought I'd say that.

I am not surpised by the results. When I looked at the first set I would not have touched that dog if I was to buy him. I am not good about the exact categories but even taking the positioning in consideration, he still looked pretty worrysome to me.

I wonder if OFA will take the second set. Looking forward to seeing what they will say.

My vet told me that they can manipulate a dog that has maybe a slight defect to a certain extend. Nothing  big but make them look a tiny bit better. It will take several tries x-raying for the most part but can be done. Not to make a borderline good good or something like that obviously.