This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Jenni78 on 15 February 2010 - 23:02
Just because you CAN certify w/SV at 12 mos, doesn't mean that you have to. Everyone always uses that argument for OFA, but it really doesn't hold much water if you're judging at the same age w/both bodies of certification.
Not only that, but I firmly believe most negative changes AFTER 12 mos. are more environmental than genetic. JMO, and just throwing that out there as an aside; this doesn't really pertain to anything.
While I understand that the OFA is not responsible for looking at anything further than the film in front of them, more times than not, the SV seems to give a more fair rating taking positioning into account, whereas OFA doesn't seem to weigh the fact that maybe the legs are totally pushed in, or pulled out, etc. etc. If one side is clearly not straight, OFA often seems to grade just the hip and not look at WHY the hip looks that way; the SV has (in my experience anyway) been better at looking at the film and giving the rating the dog probably deserved, taking the WHOLE xray into consideration.
<shrug> I don't care which people use; I allow both in my guarantee. It's just a personal thing, and I like the objectivity of measurements over human interpretaion. Yes, there are 3, but they don't evaluate as many aspects of the hips as the SV's one vet does.
To each his own. I just think it's interesting to get opinions and I was hoping to see more xrays of older, very large, working line GSDs...not couch potato pampered pets who have never done anything strenuous enough to possibly wear on their bodies.
I'm a nerd; I like to study stuff. ;-)
Not only that, but I firmly believe most negative changes AFTER 12 mos. are more environmental than genetic. JMO, and just throwing that out there as an aside; this doesn't really pertain to anything.
While I understand that the OFA is not responsible for looking at anything further than the film in front of them, more times than not, the SV seems to give a more fair rating taking positioning into account, whereas OFA doesn't seem to weigh the fact that maybe the legs are totally pushed in, or pulled out, etc. etc. If one side is clearly not straight, OFA often seems to grade just the hip and not look at WHY the hip looks that way; the SV has (in my experience anyway) been better at looking at the film and giving the rating the dog probably deserved, taking the WHOLE xray into consideration.
<shrug> I don't care which people use; I allow both in my guarantee. It's just a personal thing, and I like the objectivity of measurements over human interpretaion. Yes, there are 3, but they don't evaluate as many aspects of the hips as the SV's one vet does.
To each his own. I just think it's interesting to get opinions and I was hoping to see more xrays of older, very large, working line GSDs...not couch potato pampered pets who have never done anything strenuous enough to possibly wear on their bodies.
I'm a nerd; I like to study stuff. ;-)
by Lief on 16 February 2010 - 00:02
OFA is probably less subjective since its a consensus of three board certified radiologists not just one person actually four since OFA pre screens and assigns a non factor rating and I;m pretty sure if someone is always in disagreement they probably get rid of them, Most of the readers are located in our countries biggest Vet schools and some in private practice, They do it for a nominal fee and are not in it to screw with peoples heads I think you would have to be passionate about it to pursue that specialty. They have a program now rexraying olders dogs that had previous OFA numbers they are xraying out at 10-11 years old and seeing little if any change in hips the most notable changes were in dogs rated fair , hence the 95 percent confidence rate , Injury does not cause hip dysplasia bilateral or unilateral they can tell the difference or so they say I think they get that a lot
by Jenni78 on 16 February 2010 - 01:02
Lief says: Injury does not cause hip dysplasia bilateral or unilateral
Oh really? LMAO.
There are MANY contributing factors and causes for both hip and elbow dysplasia. If it were simple genetics, do you really think we'd all be still discussing this?
by LarryPinkston on 17 February 2010 - 04:02
Jenni,
I think Lief is right for the most part, especially hips. No one said (as far as I know) that genetics is the only determining factor, as environmental factors (diet, weight during formative years, joint supplements, etc.) also factor in to creating the hip and elbow joints. It is undetermined (i.e. definitively scientifically proven) how much each factor contributes in determining the correctness of the joints, but genetics and environment both play a strong factor.
Additionally, the genetics of hip dysplasia are complicated and not well defined; but the genetics of elbow displaysia are simpler, better defined, and easier to correct through selective breeding. Hips are more problematic, but following sound breeding practices at least minimizes the chances for the occurrence of hip dysplaysia. (There is a 17-18% occurrence of hip dysplasia in GSD overall, and has never dropped below this. Expert opinions on both sides of the Atlantic say that this is the best that most likely can be achieved, due to the strong inbreeding that started the breed.)
As for injury, I have never heard of a definitive case where hip displasia was caused by injury, but I do know of may instances of elbows not passing OFA or SV certification due to arthritic changes in the elbow joints, caused by injury. But, it is a fine distinction: is the bad elbow caused by the injury; or by the susceptibility of the joint to injury, caused by genetics? You cannot tell from the x-rays, so you must judge by the conformation of the joint, regardless of the cause. I suspect that with the same question in hips, the same answer will be given.
In my experience with elbows, whether caused by definitive injury or not, "bad" elbows run in certain bloodlines, so I am convinced that the ultimate cause is genetics, whether it is the susceptibility to injury, or just plain dysplastic elbows.
With hips, my experience is that even with scrupulous, careful breeding, and in taking all the precautionary environmental steps, it will still occur, although at a lower rate than the breed norm of 17-18%.
I think Lief is right for the most part, especially hips. No one said (as far as I know) that genetics is the only determining factor, as environmental factors (diet, weight during formative years, joint supplements, etc.) also factor in to creating the hip and elbow joints. It is undetermined (i.e. definitively scientifically proven) how much each factor contributes in determining the correctness of the joints, but genetics and environment both play a strong factor.
Additionally, the genetics of hip dysplasia are complicated and not well defined; but the genetics of elbow displaysia are simpler, better defined, and easier to correct through selective breeding. Hips are more problematic, but following sound breeding practices at least minimizes the chances for the occurrence of hip dysplaysia. (There is a 17-18% occurrence of hip dysplasia in GSD overall, and has never dropped below this. Expert opinions on both sides of the Atlantic say that this is the best that most likely can be achieved, due to the strong inbreeding that started the breed.)
As for injury, I have never heard of a definitive case where hip displasia was caused by injury, but I do know of may instances of elbows not passing OFA or SV certification due to arthritic changes in the elbow joints, caused by injury. But, it is a fine distinction: is the bad elbow caused by the injury; or by the susceptibility of the joint to injury, caused by genetics? You cannot tell from the x-rays, so you must judge by the conformation of the joint, regardless of the cause. I suspect that with the same question in hips, the same answer will be given.
In my experience with elbows, whether caused by definitive injury or not, "bad" elbows run in certain bloodlines, so I am convinced that the ultimate cause is genetics, whether it is the susceptibility to injury, or just plain dysplastic elbows.
With hips, my experience is that even with scrupulous, careful breeding, and in taking all the precautionary environmental steps, it will still occur, although at a lower rate than the breed norm of 17-18%.
by Jenni78 on 17 February 2010 - 23:02
Larry, you missed my point- saying across the board that injury can't/doesn't cause either is absolutely hilariously asinine. I don't think she even read the whole thread, or she wouldn't have posted that, as it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post- OPINIONS ON THIS XRAY-POSITIONING, AND IS THIS GENETIC OR DAMAGE??? (I'm sticking with DAMAGE, since the dog certified at a normal age! My whole point in this post was to say hey look- if this dog can look like this at 7, and was FINE at 2, then isn't it safe to say more than genetics is coming into play here? Injury, work, wear and tear, whatever you want to call it. Most people don't xray older dogs- no reason. Perhaps if they did, they would see similar things and we could get a better grasp on the complexity of hip "dysplasia."
As to the unilateral comment....well....I really disagree, and the article I linked to illustrates a few of the reasons very well. The authors of this article certainly had no agenda for saying that, at least as far as I could tell. Did you read it?
I don't have time to argue this, but do some research on certain types of elbow dysplasia especially. It can be the RESULT of an injury to a lower part of the affected leg. You can bruise/damage a distal physis, resulting in one bone stopping growing, and one bone continuing, and then guess what? You now have an elbow that doesn't fit right. Is it the elbow that was bad?
But if everyone just wants to parrot what they read on OFAs website, bow to the gods who read xrays because they're "board certified" then, hey, that's cool with me, too. I hate to rock the boat too much.
As to the unilateral comment....well....I really disagree, and the article I linked to illustrates a few of the reasons very well. The authors of this article certainly had no agenda for saying that, at least as far as I could tell. Did you read it?
I don't have time to argue this, but do some research on certain types of elbow dysplasia especially. It can be the RESULT of an injury to a lower part of the affected leg. You can bruise/damage a distal physis, resulting in one bone stopping growing, and one bone continuing, and then guess what? You now have an elbow that doesn't fit right. Is it the elbow that was bad?
But if everyone just wants to parrot what they read on OFAs website, bow to the gods who read xrays because they're "board certified" then, hey, that's cool with me, too. I hate to rock the boat too much.
by ziegenfarm on 18 February 2010 - 16:02
i always enjoy seeing xrays posted here. i always take a look at them; even the ones i don't comment on. one of the reasons that i think it is important for people to look at them is because "we", the dog owners, are the ones paying for them and we need to familiarize ourselves with the way they look, what good positioning looks like, what poor positioning looks like, and to estimate the quality of the xray itself. after all, these xrays play an enormous part in what we do or don't do with our dogs. what activities they can participate in, whether or not we breed the dog, the extent of care we take in their health and sometimes whether we euthanize the dog or not. a lot can be learned from other owners and breeders, especially in regards to less than perfect hips. as a whole, most owners are reluctant to resort to surgeries, pain killers, steroids and other treatments the vets often suggest. suggestions for diet, excercise and tips to help keep the dog comfortable are usually welcomed.
most common scenerio: owner takes his dog to his vet at age 2 to have xrays done for ofa. the dog is sedated. he and his assistant do their best to position the dog, but the knees are not rotated inward nearly enough. perhaps the pelvis is higher on one side or the other, maybe they have pulled the legs down away from the body in an attempt to get them straight, but succeeded in tipping the femur heads further out of the socket. at any rate, if the owner has not educated himself at all, he may never pick up on such things. he may not realize that he should ask for a redo or take the dog to a completely different vet. what may have been normal hips, appears fair or even mildly dysplastic. many many times folks on this board will suggest a redo or a different vet. ofa certification is not exactly cheap and it is important that it is done right the first time. even if a vet realizes that his xrays aren't all that great, he probably is not going to tell the owner.
i take my dogs to iowa state university to have it done. isu is one of the schools in this country that has turned out a great many vets. isu is also one of the facilities that ofa uses in making their determinations. they have a list of rotations and there is no way of knowing where your dog's xray may end up. ofa does not have a panel, per se, of experts that they use consistently in ratings. i was told this by one of the teaching vets at isu. he also made an off-handed remark about the way they circulate these xrays and thinking it was somewhat haphazard. he even admitted that the rating was partially dependent on who was looking at it and what the quality of the xray was. i would also add that there have been times when i have been less than happy with their work as well, but it is the best i have available.
we need to educate ourselves so we can make good descisions. it is foolish to blindly accept everything a vet says and does when we are paying the freight. that is more foolish than paying for a bad meal in a resturant or a bad haircut. ofa's "experts" are not infallible and they can only do the best they can with what they have to look at. if we send them poor xrays, we really can't be disappointed in the results, can we?
i'm glad jennifer shared this xray with us. i'm always glad to see them and i like it even more when the final ofa results are posted. ---------pjp
most common scenerio: owner takes his dog to his vet at age 2 to have xrays done for ofa. the dog is sedated. he and his assistant do their best to position the dog, but the knees are not rotated inward nearly enough. perhaps the pelvis is higher on one side or the other, maybe they have pulled the legs down away from the body in an attempt to get them straight, but succeeded in tipping the femur heads further out of the socket. at any rate, if the owner has not educated himself at all, he may never pick up on such things. he may not realize that he should ask for a redo or take the dog to a completely different vet. what may have been normal hips, appears fair or even mildly dysplastic. many many times folks on this board will suggest a redo or a different vet. ofa certification is not exactly cheap and it is important that it is done right the first time. even if a vet realizes that his xrays aren't all that great, he probably is not going to tell the owner.
i take my dogs to iowa state university to have it done. isu is one of the schools in this country that has turned out a great many vets. isu is also one of the facilities that ofa uses in making their determinations. they have a list of rotations and there is no way of knowing where your dog's xray may end up. ofa does not have a panel, per se, of experts that they use consistently in ratings. i was told this by one of the teaching vets at isu. he also made an off-handed remark about the way they circulate these xrays and thinking it was somewhat haphazard. he even admitted that the rating was partially dependent on who was looking at it and what the quality of the xray was. i would also add that there have been times when i have been less than happy with their work as well, but it is the best i have available.
we need to educate ourselves so we can make good descisions. it is foolish to blindly accept everything a vet says and does when we are paying the freight. that is more foolish than paying for a bad meal in a resturant or a bad haircut. ofa's "experts" are not infallible and they can only do the best they can with what they have to look at. if we send them poor xrays, we really can't be disappointed in the results, can we?
i'm glad jennifer shared this xray with us. i'm always glad to see them and i like it even more when the final ofa results are posted. ---------pjp
by Jenni78 on 18 February 2010 - 17:02
Ziegenfarm, thank you for taking the time to post something thoughful and logical. ;-) The reasons you stated are EXACTLY why I started the post. I hate to even guess how many dogs have been needlessly spayed, neutered, even PTS over bad xrays and bad evaluations. I especially thank you for pointing out that there is not one "set" panel of 3 OFA evaluators; they get tossed around quite a bit, hence the inconsistency that can occur.
OFA is better than nothing; I'm not bashing the organization. I'm bashing the idea that we as owners should take a backseat and leave it all up to the "experts."
OFA is better than nothing; I'm not bashing the organization. I'm bashing the idea that we as owners should take a backseat and leave it all up to the "experts."
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top