Help, X-Ray's Rumors Vs Facts ??'s - Page 1

I am getting conflicting stories from breeders, trainers, and Veterinarians. Some say, weight, condition, and x-ray quality can play a factor in reading of xray's Others say, No (with the exception of xray quality.) Everyone seems to agree that quality of xray's can play a role. Can anyone further elaborate especially on the weight factor having to do with possible lower reading than what might be if the dog carries good weight. Anything you offer is appreciated, I would like to get this strait. But have many different opinions coming at me from Vets, trainers, and breeders. Not just one or two individuals we're talking a dozen people here that I have consulted with 3 of them Vets.

EchoMeadows, I have made many x-rays, and of course they were for my dogs and their body weight was always ideal. The "thickness" of the dog's body is a factor when determining the strength (or time) of the emmission of the particle beam, but that is calculated by measuring this dimension as the dog lies on the table and then setting the machine. Ruling out improper positioning, most problems with conventional x-rays are due to the care and setup of the film developing machine. If the clinic makes a lot of x-rays, then the machine is probably clean and well adjusted. Dirty silver solution, dirty and swollen contact rollers and brushes can cause the image to be of poor quality, and can place "ghosts" on the film that can be interpreted as minor flaws. If the veterinary clinic uses one of the new digital machines, then film quality and development quality are no longer an issue, unless you want a image printed on silver emulsion film. The O.F.A. now accepts digital images, but from D.H.'s post this is not yet accepted by the S.V.. Please see this post that I made a day or so ago: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/75673.html Bob-O

Well said Bob-O. The quality (aside from mechanical issues) depends a lot on proper measurements of the dog that are taken prior to the radiograph being taken.

Bob-O... The "thickenss" of the dog has NOTHING to do with the beam and the end resulting image. These are factors taken into consideration when choosing a technique to actually achieve the image. Although it would seem to make sense..it doesn't change what the hips are or what they will look like on the x-ray. The positioning will affect this for sure!!! Being overweight is just plain bad on the dog and the bones/joints do take a hit from the excess weight. Just like humans. So overall...weight, condition (or lack thereof), and genetics do play a role. As does a good vet who knows how to position for the x-ray.

A dogs' weight, or condition has NOTHING to do with x-rays or x-ray quality. X-ray quality can be affected by equipment being dirty, developer being old and dirty etc., as Bob-O has mentioned. Artifact is also possible on digital images. Everyone knows that improper positioning can make a difference in some cases on how that x-ray is read. Being able to quickly assess an x-ray is done with proper positioning, as in the digital x-ray system which I recently used on 7 dogs, is a wonderful thing. Measurements of the part to be x-rays *(thickness if you will) should be made to make a correct calculation as to the strength and time of the x-ray to be made. Really experienced and competent x-ray techs don't always do this, but in my experience, most x-ray techs have little real training in the vet services. If there is a question as to whether a dog has or does not have some radiographic evidence of dysplasia, arthritis or other problem, then an x-ray can be repeated. But a dogs' being overweight, for example, or in bad condition, is not really going to influence the conformation and opacity of the bone in and around the joints.

The other thing that is being questioned by some vets I've spoken with, is tranquilization depth, this is another point I am getting conflicting information about from everyone, Some say, dogs that are "far" under read bad or worse than they should due to the "relaxed state" ... Others say, tranqulization depth has nothing to do with it, Your thoughts... Bob0 I did read that, Very interesting indeed !! Thank You for posting it !!

<<