1

HIP ASSESSMENT FOR DYSPLASIA DURING PRE AND POST SKELETAL MATURITY IN GERMAN SHEPHERD AND LABRADOR RETRIEVER BREEDS OF DOGS

ANANDARAJ, A. I .D. No. MVM 10059 (VSR)

DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY SURGERY AND RADIOLOGY MADRAS VETERINARY COLLEGE CHENNAI - 600 007 TAMIL NADU VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY 2012

2

HIP ASSESSMENT FOR DYSPLASIA DURING PRE AND POST SKELETAL MATURITY IN GERMAN SHEPHERD AND LABRADOR RETRIEVER BREEDS OF DOGS

ANANDARAJ, A. I .D. No. MVM 10059 (VSR)

Thesis submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF VETERINARY SCIENCE in VETERINARY SURGERY AND RADIOLOGY
to the

TAMIL NADU VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY CHENNAI – 600 051

DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY SURGERY AND RADIOLOGY MADRAS VETERINARY COLLEGE CHENNAI - 600 007 TAMIL NADU VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY

2012

3

TAMIL NADU VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY SURGERY AND RADIOLOGY MADRAS VETERINARY COLLEGE, CHENNAI - 600 007

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “HIP ASSESSMENT FOR DYSPLASIA DURING PRE AND POST SKELETAL MATURITY IN GERMAN SHEPHERD AND LABRADOR RETRIEVER BREEDS OF DOGS” submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF VETERINARY SCIENCE in VETERINARY SURGERY AND RADIOLOGY to the TAMIL NADU VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI-600051, is a record of bonafide research work carried out by ANANDARAJ, A., under my supervision and guidance and that no part of this thesis has been submitted for the award of any other degree, diploma, fellowship or other similar titles or prizes and that the work has not been published in part or full in any scientific or popular journal or magazine.

Date : Place: Chennai - 600007

(Dr. R. JAYAPRAKASH) CHAIRMAN RECOMMENDED

Date:

EXTERNAL EXAMINER

APPROVED BY Chairman : (Dr. R. JAYAPRAKASH) Members : 1. (Dr. S. AYYAPPAN) Date: Place: Chennai – 600007 2. (Dr. A.P. NAMBI)

Kallakurichi. Tamil Nadu. Pin: 606 202 Mobile: 9600725750 Mail ID: anandmvc@gmail.Sc.com Membership in professional Societies : Member of Tamil Nadu State Veterinary Council. and A. : 05. Mamanandal Road. K. Vepery. Chennai – 600 007.V. Villupuram District. A.06.1986 : Kallakurichi. Tamil Nadu : Veterinary Surgery and Radiology : Completed B.H degree in the year 2009 from Madras Veterinary College. Marital status Permanent address : Unmarried : 41. .4 CURRICULUM VITAE Name of the student Date of birth Place of birth Major field of specialization : ANANDARAJ. Chennai.

5 Dedicated to My Beloved Family .

6 Acknowledgement .

Ph. innovative suggestions.P. Professor. Chennai. I express my sincere gratitude to the Member of Advisory Committee Dr. Chennai-7 for his practical and valuable suggestions. critical suggestion.D. Department of Clinics. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology.Ravi Sundar George.7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Gratitude cannot be seen or expressed. S.B. Ayyappan. for his keen interest.D.D. Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine Ethics and Jurisprudence. Madras Veterinary College. I express my profuse thanks to Dr.7 for his continuous support.. I profoundly acknowledge and sincerely thank the Member of the Advisory Committee Dr.Ph. valuable suggestions and encouragement throughout the period of my study. constant and continuous encouragement throughout the period of study. I am grateful to Dr. laudable counseling. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology for his expert advice.D. Jayaprakash. encouragement and timely help in all academic affairs throughout the study. immeasurable help and suggestions in carrying out my research work. Ph.D. Professor and Head. Department of Clinics. Professor and Head.Suresh Kumar. technical guidance. Ph.. constant encouragement throughout the study. yet there is no better way to express it. Words fall flat when describing my sense of gratitude and thanks to the Chairman. Professor. Madras Veterinary College. Professor and Head. I am grateful to Dr. Ph.. Although thank is poor expression of debt of gratitude one feels.. . Dr. valuable comments.R. Nambi. the guidance when things went bad and his kindness for understanding life.Justin William. Chennai. it can only be felt deep in heart and is beyond description. Professor. A. Ph.D. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology for his valuable suggestions and encouragement.. R.7 for his latitude to pursue my research. Madras Veterinary College..

D.Sivashankar. I express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. I .Murali Manohar..G.Capt.D. constant encouragement throughout the study.. Ph. to proceed with my research. M.D.Sc.Hari Krishna. They have been showering patience and support on me from day one I entered this department. Resident Veterinary Officer and Head.Prathaban. Professor and Head.. Dr.8 I am extremely thankful and grateful to Dr. Arun Ph. for his help and valuable suggestions during my research.L.N. Madras Veterinary College and Dr. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology and Dr.. Mala Shammi. Assistant Professor.R.. Ph. I am thankful to Dr. His willingness to share his bright thoughts were very fruitful for shaping up my ideas and future. Director of Clinics. Ph. Ph. Department of Clinics and Dr.Ganesh. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Associate Professor and Dr. TANUVAS for providing all the facilities for the study. Madras Veterinary College.. Assistant Professor.D. Ph. Professor.. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology.D. Ph.D.Arun Prasad . I would like to thank him for being the first person who taught me the way. Dr.for their crucial help when I was struggling to get articles for my research.Ramani.Nagarajan. Ph. They have always been beside me during my happy and hard moments to motivate me. Professor.B. continuous encouragement and moral support given during my study. It’s a pleasure to pay tribute to Dr. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology for their valuable suggestions.V.V.S.D. Ph. Ph..D.D and Dr. M. Professor.D. I would like to express my special thanks to Dr. Anushya who in the inspiration for my post graduate studies and funds. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology who had and have persistent confidence in me even when I didn’t believe in myself. I am thankful to Dr. Veterinary Teaching Clinical Complex.D.C.V.Dhanan Jaya Rao Ph. Assistant Professor. Orthanadu and Dr. Assistant Professor.D.V. Department of Clinics. Professor... They were always there for me by constantly encouraging and pushing me to heights by providing hands on training and creating a pleasant. VC &RD... Department of Clinics for their valuable suggestions.Sc.Gokul.Velavan.R. Ph.V.Shafiuzama. The Dean.A.. They have always encouraged me to live intensively even when I was thinking about doing something else. fun filled working environment.

Dr. Arvindraj.Harish Kulkarni. Indirani. Dr.Arun.) .Pradnya. Dr. Dr. Mr. (ANANDARAJ.V.A. who have lent their hands to my thesis knowingly and unknowingly through various means. Dr.Sivapriya and for their unconditional love which has raised me to this level.A. N. Dr. Dr.Bhuvana. Dr. Dr. Madras Veterinary College. I am thankful to Mr.V.Sc.S. Annadurai.Anirudh.9 doubt that whether I will ever be able to convey my thanks fully.A. Deeban.Sc. Dr. Dr. Veerapandiyan. Sudharshan. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology and Dr. Research Scholar. I thank to the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University for offering the TANUVAS Merit Scholarship to my post graduate studies. Dr. Department of Meat Science.Pargunan. I also express my apology if I have failed to thank anyone of them for their help. Kumar and Mr.Enbavelan. I am indebted to all my friends and colleagues Dr.S. but I owe him my eternal gratitude. Lord! I am always thankful and feel blessed for giving me patience and strength to overcome the difficulties which crossed my way in accomplishment of this endeavor. Shiva Attendors who have helped me extremely in preparation of the patient. Jai Ganesh.Balaji and Dr. Elamaran. A.V.Reena.Manoj. my sister Ms. Anantharaj. M.Rajalingam. for their needful help and pleasant company in my college life. Dr.R. I extend my heartfelt thanks to my batch-mates Dr.Naina. for working with me in odd hours so that I could finish my work as scheduled. Dr.Sivaprakasam. M. Siranjeevikumar. A. K. my mother Mrs. Technician for helping me with X-rays and Mr.Nithin. Dr. Dr. Ranganathan. S. Dr. G.Ramanathan.Prabhu.Bharathi. Dr. I am always grateful to my father Mr. Dr. Sangameswaran. Research Scholar. A. Dr. I place my heartful thanks to my friends Mr.

10 Abstract .

physical palpation by Ortolani manouver and haematobiochemical parameters were studied and recorded in both the groups.11 ABSTRACT Title : HIP ASSESSMENT FOR DYSPLASIA DURING PRE AND POST SKELETAL MATURITY IN GERMAN SHEPHERD AND LABRADOR RETRIEVER BREEDS OF DOGS : ANANDARAJ. thesis : M.Sc. The clinical signs. R. Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology. Standard Ventro dorsal view(SVDV).. Chennai-600 051 Name of the student Degree for submitted which Name of the Chairman Department Place Year and University Dogs presented with clinical signs of hip dysplasia to the Small Animal Orthopaedic unit of Madras Veterinary College Teaching Hospital were selected for the study. Under general anaesthesia radiography of hips was performed in different positioning methods namely. Dorsal acetabular rim view and 60 degree stress view. The incidence of hip dysplasia with regard to age. From those hip . Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. Chennai. in Veterinary Surgery & Radiology : Dr. Professor.D. Weight bearing view.V.600 007 : Veterinary Surgery and Radiology : Madras Veterinary College. breed and sex of 322 dogs during study period were recorded as percentage. Madras Veterinary College. Distraction view(DV). Chennai – 600 007 : 2012. Ph. Clinically hip dysplastic German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs were grouped into two groups of six numbers and subjected to hip assessment before and after skeletal maturity of long bones. JAYAPRAKASH. A.

The initial and final scores of quantitative radiographic hip assessment before and after skeletal maturity period were correlated and analyzed statistically. Dorsolateral subluxation index (DLSI). Acetabular slope angle (ASA). Correlation between the Quantitative radiographic measurements were showed that high correlation between NA and DLSI. . The clinical symptoms. The quantitative radiographic assessments of hips were repeated after skeletal maturity of long bones in all the cases in both the groups. six different quantitative measurements of hips were calculated to grade the hips for dysplasia namely Norberg angle (NA). DI highly correlated with SI in both groups. Values which were normal and near normal. DI and SI. The score obtained from the above six quantitative radiographic methods were statistically correlated with each other and the best related methods were identified and discussed critically. Central edge angle (CEA) and Subluxation index (SI). highly correlated with each others in all quantitative radiographic assessment methods. No significant difference observed in hematological and biochemical parameters among Group I and Group II animals between pre and post skeletal maturity period. Distraction index (DI). Management and feeding schedule were advised during skeletal maturity period. physical palpation by Ortolani maneuver were correlated with those quantitative measurements and found that in group I and group II dogs there was an improvement in pain score during skeletal maturity period whereas Lameness score was improved only in group I dogs.12 positioning views. More relative correlation was seen between NA to DLSI and DI to SI.

13 Contents .

4 2.5 INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE Incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs Congenital Breed predisposition Environmental factors Nutrition Hormonal effects Level of Activity Pathophysiology Clinical signs Pain Lameness Gait Physical examination Ortolani sign Barden`s test Radiological signs Quantitative radiological measurements Norberg angle Distraction index Subluxation index Dorsolateral Subluxation index Central edge angle 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 13 13 14 16 16 17 PAGE NO.3 2. TITLE .6. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF PLATES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS I II 2.3.1 2.6.2 2.4.3 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.3.2 2.3 2.1 2.6.1.1.6.5 2.2 2.5 2.14 CONTENTS CHAPTER NO.6 2.2 2.1 2.3.4 2.1.4 2.4.1.1.1.6.1 2.1 2.

4.6 2.7.6.6.6.1 3.5 3.6.7.4.2 2.3.1.1 3.2 3.1 2.6.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.15 CHAPTER NO.3.6.7 3.1.3.1.3.6.6.4 3.3 2.1 3. 2. 17 18 18 18 18 19 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 26 26 31 35 35 35 38 38 41 MATERIALS AND METHODS Selection of cases Design of experiment Incidence of age.3.8 Acetabular slope angle Medical management Neutraceuticals Dietary management Physical therapy Genetic control TITLE PAGE NO.1 3.7 2.6 3.6.6.1 3.7.4 III 3.1 3.1 3.4.2 3.3 3.7.2 3. breed and sex Clinical signs Pain Lameness Physical palpation Ortolani Sign Haematological and Biochemical Parameters Haematological Parameters Biochemical parameters Anaesthetic protocol Quantitative radiographic assessment Hip Extended view Radiographic signs Norberg angle Distraction view and distraction index Dorsoventral view for Dorsolateral subluxation score Dorsal acetabular rim view Central edge angle Acetabular slope angle Stress radiographic view Degree of hip dysplasia in different quantitative assessment methods Statistical analysis .3 3.2 3.2 3.4.

1 4.4.5.11 4.16 CHAPTER NO.5.3.3 4.4.9 4.5 RESULTS Incidence Age Sex Size of the animal Breed Clinical symptoms Pain Lameness TITLE PAGE NO.2 4. IV 4.2 4.4.4 4.7 4.5 4. 42 42 42 42 42 42 46 46 46 49 49 49 49 49 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 56 57 57 58 Physical Palpation findings Ortolani sign Haematological and biochemical parameters Haemoglobin Packed Cell volume Red Blood Cell Count White Blood Cell Count Neutrophils Lymphocytes Serum alkaline phosphatase Total protein Albumin Calcium Phosphorus Quantitative radiographic assessment Norberg angle Distraction index Dorsolateral subluxation score Central edge angle Acetabular slope angle .1 4.1.4 4.1 4.10 4.6 4.4.4 4.2.5 4.4.5.3 4.2 4.2 4.4.3 4.1 4.1 4.8 4.4 4.4.1.1.1.5.4.3 4.1 4.2 4.4.4.2.5.4.

5 5.5.2 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.6 4.1.4 5.5.3 5.1.1 Subluxation index TITLE PAGE NO.6.4 5.6 4. 59 59 59 Correlation between quantitative radiographic assessments Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group I dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period DISCUSSION Incidence Age Sex Size of the animal Breed Clinical symptoms Pain Lameness Physical Palpation by Ortolani manoeuver Haematological and biochemical parameters Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Norberg angle Distraction index Dorsolateral subluxation score Central edge angle and Acetabular slope angle Subluxation index Correlation between different quantitative radiographic assessment techniques SUMMARY BIBLIOGRAPHY 4.1.1 5.2 66 V 5.5.5.5 5. 4.2.5.5.2 5.6 VI 69 69 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 72 73 73 74 74 75 79 .1 5.17 CHAPTER NO.2.3 5.1 5.6.1.2 5.4 5.

18 List of Tables .

44 47 48 50 54 55 60 61 Title Incidence of Hip dysplasia based on size of the animal Pain scoring in Group I and Group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Lameness scoring in Group I and Group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Ortolani sign in Group I and Group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Hematological and biochemical parameters in group I dogs Hematological and biochemical parameters in group II dogs Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group I dogs during pre skeletal maturity period Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group I dogs during post skeletal maturity period Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group II dogs during pre skeletal maturity period Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group II dogs during post skeletal maturity period Paired `t`-Test in group I dogs during Pre and Post skeletal maturity period Paired `t`-Test in group II dogs during Pre and Post skeletal maturity period Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group I dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period 9 62 10 63 11 64 12 65 13 67 14 68 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Page No.19 LIST OF TABLES Table No.

20 List of Figures .

21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 43 43 45 Title Age wise incidence of hip dysplasia Sex wise incidence of hip dysplasia Incidence in Large sized breeds . 1 2 3 Page No.

22 List of Plates .

weight bearing view Radiograph showing the measurement of dorsolateral subluxation index from weight bearing view Positioning the dog for central edge angle and acetabular slope angle assessment . 21 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 36 11 37 12 13 39 40 .23 LIST OF PLATES Plate No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Title Clinical signs of hip dysplasia Positioning the dog for Norberg angle assessment standard ventro dorsal view Radiograph showing the measurement of norbreg angle from standard ventro dorsal view Custom deviced distractor used for distraction index assessment Positioning the dog for distraction index assessment distraction view Radiograph showing the measurement of distraction index from distraction view Positioning foam bed used for dorsolateral subluxation index assessment Positioning the dog for dorsolateral subluxation index assessment .dorsal acetabular rim view Radiograph showing the measurement of central edge angle and acetabular slope angle from dorsal acetabular rim view Positioning the dog for subluxation index assessment .60 degree stress view Radiograph showing the measurement of subluxation index from 60 degree stress view Page No.

24 List of Abbreviations .

25 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASA CEA CHD DI DJD DLSI HAP HD HJL NA OA QHAT SI SVDV Acetabular Slope Angle Central Edge Angle Canine Hip Dysplasia Distraction Index Degenerative Joint Disease Dorso Lateral Subluxation Index Half Axial Positioning Hip Dysplasia Hip Joint Laxity Norberg Angle Osteoarthritis Quantitative Hip Assessment Technique Subluxation Index Standard Ventro Dorsal View .

26 Introduction .

This can be achieved by estimating the breeding value of an animal through anatomical and physiological assessment of hips by radiographic procedure. Different techniques of radiographic assessment for diagnosis of hip dysplasia are based on subjective and quantitative evaluations. evolved over the years.. In dogs. The occurrence of hip dysplasia may get reduced only if the genetic quality of breeding animals is ascertained more exactly (Janutta et al. 2007). 2008b). 1995). which in turn needs extensive monitoring and recording system with less dependable results (Farrell et al. . 2008).. The disease is polygenetic in origin and hence its control is attributed to selective breeding of dogs with normal hips. No single method has been proved to be an effective predictor of the disease (Fries and Remedios. A large number of quantitative measurement methods are being practiced in different countries all over the world to diagnose hip dysplasia.. Among these. hip dysplasia could present substantial challenges to the veterinarian because anatomical features of hip joint differ differently with different breeds and the fact that hip dysplasia is often diagnosed wrongly and sometimes delayed (Fluckiger et al. indiscriminate breeding and inbreeding between dysplastic littermates (Ginja et al. The main reasons for hip dysplasia are poor genetic quality of breeding dogs. subjective assessment depends on the cumulative assessment of a hip joint by a team of radiologists.. Therefore many hip assessment techniques were developed to diagnose this genetic condition at different age groups to select dogs for potential breeding and management.1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Hip dysplasia in dogs is a multi factorial orthopaedic disease affecting the hip joints. 1999).

1. . 3. To study the clinical symptoms.2 Based on the above facts. this study was undertaken to carryout different quantitative hip assessment techniques on skeletally immature and mature German Shepherd and Labrador Retriever breeds of dogs with the following objectives. To correlate different hip assessment techniques during pre and post skeletal maturity period in German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs. 2. To evaluate various radiographic procedures used for hip assessment during pre and post skeletal maturity period in German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs. physical palpation. To study the incidence and aetiology of hip dysplasia in German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs. 4. haematobiochemical parameters and radiological signs in German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs.

3 Review of Literature .

each contributing a small part to the disease. 87 per cent of Labrador Retrievers with a DI less . (1985) stated that hip dysplasia was a polygenic trait caused by the interaction of hundreds of genes. (1973) reported that Labrador Retrievers had a high incidence (20 to 30 per cent) of hip dysplasia. (2004) observed that hip dysplasia (HD) was an inherited. At least one pair of these genes was believed to be recessive. Mäki et al.1. The authors found that it was an additive trait where the severity of an individual's disease was determined by the number of affected genes present. Mäki et al. (1990) observed that dogs with a DI less than 0.1. Ginja et al. Breed predisposition Lust et al.85 and 0. Congenital Mackenzie et al. INCIDENCE OF HIP DYSPLASIA IN DOGS 2. (2000) found that dogs with a normal radiographic phenotype could still be carriers of certain dysplasia genes and transmit these genes to their offspring.3 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2. 2. In a similar study. The authors reported that some of the possible major genes were found to be recessive. and the period between 3 and 8 months appeared to be important since during that time the initial diagnosis of the disease was made. making the use of phenotypic selection against HD ineffective resulting in very small or negligible genetic progress.1. (2008a) stated that Hip Joint Laxity heritability was higher than the heritability of Hip Dysplasia at 0.43 respectively.3 did not develop CHD. Smith et al. noncongenital disease that was particularly prevalent in large and giant breeds of dog.1.2.

environmental influences alone could not create hip dysplasia in dogs. floor cover. age of the dam.3. Environmental factors Kasstrom (1975) stated that without genetic predisposition. Culp et al. Bennett (1987) found no evidence in the scientific literature that mega dose of vitamin C or any other multi-vitamin/mineral supplement were beneficial in reducing the effects or preventing hip dysplasia Mäki et al.4 or greater became dysplastic. (2000) observed that the phenotypic expression of HD in dogs genetically predisposed to the condition might be modified by environmental risk factors such as nutrition. Nutrition Kasstrom (1975) reported that a higher than needed caloric intake during the rapid growth phase might result in earlier and more severe dysplastic changes when the genetic potential for dysplasia was present.4 than 0. (1995) reported that. German shepherd dogs tended to develop coxarthrosis more readily than Rottweilers breeds of dogs.6 and ranged from 86 to109 and for Labrador retriever was 101 ranged from 81 to110 measured from three hundered and fifty clinically normal dogs. birth weight. season of birth and hip laxity. (2007) found that expression of HD genes would be influenced by a number of environmental factors. whereas 57 per cent of dogs with a DI 0. Lower caloric intake might minimize . Popovitch et al. pre-weaning mortality rate in the litter.1. (2006) reported mean Norberg angle for German shepherd dogs was 99. bodyweight. with the same DI. number of puppies in the litter. Silvestre et al.4 at the age of 4 months developed normal hips. exercise. 2. 2.1.4.

Belfield (1976) stated that. Feeding high doses of vitamin C to pregnant bitches and their offspring until 2 years of age was reported to eliminate hip dysplasia. There was no scientific evidence that supplementing high doses of vitamin C in the diet of growing puppies prevented hip dysplasia. Bennett (1987) stated that excess vitamin C in puppies’ caused hypercalcemia and might delay bone remodeling and cartilage maturation. Hansen (1989) reported that there was no difference in plasma amino acid concentrations between normal and dysplastic dogs. Current recommendations for large. dogs could synthesis vitamins necessary for collagen formation. The author also studied that young dogs did not have a protective mechanism against excess dietary calcium. vitamin D increased intestinal calcium absorption and renal resorption. Hazewinkel (1989) reported that high calcium decreased osteoclastic activity.5 or delay the evidence of dysplasia in the same dog. but current research suggested that dietary excess of carbohydrate was important contributing factors. and 30 IU of vitamin D per 1000 kJ of metabolizable energy. High dietary levels increased the amount of calcium absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. which changed the frequency and severity in genetically predisposed individuals.7 gram of calcium. growing dogs are to feed 15 grams of protein. excess vitamin D had an effect similar to . Hazewinkel (1994) stated that nutrition was a major environmental factor influencing the development of hip dysplasia. The author also reported that. but would not change the genotype. but it did not cause hip dysplasia. The absolute amount of calcium rather than the calcium:phosphorus ratio was more important. 0. No dietary deficiencies were known to influence the development of hip dysplasia. delaying endochondral ossification and skeletal remodeling.

Wallace (1987) stated that estrogen given to puppies could induce hip dysplasia.5. Kealy et al. including estrogen. Corley and Keller (1989) reported that. radiographs be taken at least one month after weaning the off spring. relaxin. possibly due to the relaxation effects of estrogens on the ligaments and joint capsule. size and breed for canine hip dysplasia and reported that males and females were equally affected. (2000) stated that developemental orthopedic diseases with a demonstrated nutritional aetiology included canine hip dysplasia and Osteochondritis Dissecans. parathyroid hormone and insulin had been investigated as potential causes or contributing factors in hip dysplasia. . Hormonal effects Priester and Mulvihill (1972) studied the relative risk of sex. 2. Greg Keller (2006) stated that oestrus appeared to affect the reliability of diagnosis in some females during which some animals demonstrated a degree of subluxation (laxity) that was not present when the bitch was out of season.1. growth hormone. The author suggested that following pregnancy. but Riser et al. rapidly growing dogs. (1985) stated that estrogen levels in dysplastic pups were not higher than in normal pups. Radiography of these bitches might result in a false diagnosis of HD. Excess dietary calcium and vitamin D might contribute to the development of hip dysplasia in genetically predisposed individuals and should be avoided in young. The risk in giant breeds was 50 times more than small or medium sized breeds. The authors found that the development of degenerative joint disease associated with CHD could be manipulated to some extent by limited food consumption. a number of hormones.6 that of excess calcium.

Manley et al. synovitis and acetabular microfractures and in adult dogs with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis. when the animal was in good muscular tone. The author observed that few animals exhibited subluxation after prolonged periods of inactivity due to illness. the hips appeared normal. (2007) found that there were two ages at which dogs were presented with clinical signs of hip dysplasia. . etc. Smith et al. Moore et al. Therefore radiography was recommended when the animal was in good health and muscular tone.7 2. Level of Activity Barr et al.1. weather conditions. (2001) described HD as a biomechanical disease characterised by abnormal development of the hip joint and could be a highly debilitating condition for both working and pet dogs. (1997) observed that greater pelvic muscle mass was associated with a reduced incidence of hip dysplasia. Greg Keller (2006) stated that periods of prolonged inactivity might affect the reliability of diagnosis of HD. (1987) observed that progression of the disease varied in hip dysplastic dogs and the clinical signs could sometimes be due to concurrent neurological or orthopaedic diseases of the hind limbs. Cardinet et al.6. Bennett and May (1995) reported that failure of muscles and skeleton to mature together at the right time results in joint instability. younger than one year of age with hip instability and overloading of some articular areas where in the pain was caused mainly by tearing or stretching of the round ligament. (1995) stated that hip joint laxity (HJL) was considered a major risk factor leading to abnormal weight-bearing forces and subsequent development of osteoarthritis during or after maturity. and on later examination.

8 2. affected individuals had changes in both the synovium and the articular cartilage grossly with flaking and fissuring of the surface cartilage and microscopically. resulting in abnormal joint conformation and secondary degenerative joint disease.2. thickening of the femoral neck and atrophy of local muscle was characterized in advanced hip dysplasia. Sharpey's fibers were torn. edema. causing osteophytes to form along the joint capsule's attachment to the acetabulum and femoral neck. More force was transmitted to the overlying cartilage. The rate and degree of disease progression varied with the individual and the amount of joint instability present. Alexander (1992) reported that hip dysplasia was a biomechanical disease where hip instability in the young dog altered the concentration of forces on the growing femoral head and acetabulum. This affected the bone growth and remodeling. With healing. exposing the subchondral bone. (1985) reported that cartilage degeneration. joint stability might improve or progress to complete luxation. Stretching of the joint capsule and ligament of the femoral head was observed as early as 2 weeks of age. The subchondral bone became sclerotic and eburnated. Abnormal weight bearing forces caused microfractures in the subchondral bone of the dorsal acetabular rim and femoral head. and fibroplasia of the ligament of the femoral head. stretching or rupture of the ligament of the femoral head. Mild proliferative. surface chondrocytes were lost and changes in the matrix's proteoglycan content and collagen fibril network had occurred. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY Lust and Summers (1981) and Shepherd (1986) reported that pups genetically predisposed to hip dysplasia were normal at birth. Cartilage on the medial aspect of the femoral head and dorsal acetabular rim was gradually worn away. At this point. the bone became harder and less able to absorb shock. as well as joint effusion. Lust et al. joint capsule thickening. . were present at 4th week. nonsuppurative synovitis. proliferation of the dorsal acetabular rim. increasing its degeneration at these sites. By 12th week.

Pain Barr et al. adduction 30 to 40 . internal rotation 50 to 60 and external rotation 80 to 90 . Fry and Clark (1992) stated that a complete clinical examination should include observation of the patient at rest.3. reduced height of step.2. 2. (2008b) reported that. (1993) observed that dysplastic dogs had higher synovial fluid osmolalities than did normal dogs due to differences in synovial fluid electrolyte concentrations of sodium. CLINICAL SIGNS 2.9 Kealy et al. bunny hopping.3.3. When normal synovial fluid volumes were present. Smith (1998) stated that synovial fluid volume had been implicated in the pathogenesis of hip dysplasia through its effect on joint laxity. climbing stairs or in jumping over obstacles were the typical clinical signs observed in dogs with hip dysplasia. potassium and chloride. gait abnormalities. 2. extension 80 to 90 . Gait Ginja et al. 2. walking and trotting and re-examination after vigorous exercise.1. Lameness Newton (1985) stated that the normal ranges of motion during different position were: flexion 70 to 80 . difficulty in rising. displacement of the femur created negative intra articular pressure that tended to pull the femoral head back into the acetabulum. .3. This mechanism was lost when joint effusion was present. shortened stride length. (1987) observed that majority of dogs afflicted with HD showed minimal or no clinical sign. such as stiffness.3. abduction 70 to 80 .

while the pelvis is supported with the other hand. Hip joints are considered to exhibit a positive Ortolani sign when a palpable or audible ‘clunk’ was present during hip joint reduction. capsular fibrosis. The first group of signs provided information on HJL.4. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION Fry and Clark (1992) had categorized number of clinical tests into two groups that could give information about the hip joint. Bardens and Barlow tests) and second group of signs to detect signs of osteoarthritis (palpation and range of motion tests). Puerto et al. the result of the Ortolani test was considered negative. subluxation or fixed luxation. 2. . recommended mainly for use on young animals (Ortolani. but its absence did not always indicate a tight hip. Ortolani sign According to Chalman and Butler (1985) and Ginja et al.4. Farrell et al. Then the stifle is slowly abducted to reduce the hip joint. The authors also found a significant relationship between the result of Ortolani maneuver and radiographic distraction index in the absence of any existing degenerative joint disease. the examiner stands behind the animal and grasps the upper stifle firmly putting the hip in a neutral position and the femur parallel to the surface of the examination table. (2007) reported that in case of OA crepitus might be detected during palpation of hip joint and the range of motion might be decreased due to the presence of osteophytes.1. (1999) stated that a positive Ortolani test suggested excessive laxity. A proximally directed force is applied to the shaft of the femur to elicit hip subluxation. The dog is to be placed in lateral recumbency. If a ‘clunk’ cannot be elicited. (2008c) Ortolani test is a common physical manipulation examination used in veterinary clinical medicine to diagnose Hip Joint Laxity. Fibrosis and thickening of the joint capsule.10 2. and the acetabular rim and femoral head destruction prevented the detectable “clunk”.

11

Adams et al. (2000) and Ginja et al. (2009) observed that Ortolani test also lacked sensitivity in puppies around 8 weeks of age but was most sensitive in young dogs older than 4 months of age. Vezzoni et al. (2008) reported that in positive cases of HD Ortolani technique could be used to determine the angles of reduction (AR) and angles of subluxation (AS), as the inclination of the femur relative to the sagittal plane at the moment of reduction and subluxation, respectively. This was particularly relevant when a triple pelvic osteotomy or pubic symphysiodesis were being considered. 2.4.2. Barden`s test Bardens and Hardwick (1968) stated that Barden’s test was recommended to evaluate HJL in puppies at 6 to 8 weeks of age. With the animal on lateral recumbency, the examiners stand behind the puppy and grasp the upper femur. Upward pressure is applied by that hand to elevate the femur horizontally. The index finger of the other hand is placed on the greater trochanter and its mobility is used to estimate HJL. Adams et al. (2000) stated that only Bardens maneuver was significantly predictive of degenerative joint disease incidence when performed on 7.3 weeks old puppies. 2.5. RADIOLOGICAL SIGNS Riser (1975) reported that, the first signs of HD could be noticed as early as 30 to 60 days of age radiographically, characterised by femoral head subluxation and delayed ossification of the craniodorsal acetabular rim in severely affected individuals. Morgan (1987) observed that occurrence of caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte on the proximal aspect of femoral neck was an important radiological

12

sign of degenerative joint disease due to canine hip dysplasia in young large breed dogs. Corley (1992) reported radiographic changes as early as the 7th week after birth in severely dysplastic hips, however in mild dysplasia the secondary radiographic changes might not be apparent until 14 months of age or older. Flückiger (1995) and Gibbs (1997) reported that a definitive diagnosis could be made, only if characteristic signs of HD were evident on a standard ventro dorsal radiograph of the pelvis. Powers et al. (2004) stated that an indistinct linear sclerosis on the femoral neck termed as puppy line had been reported as an incidental, transient radiographic finding that could be confused with caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte in dogs up to 18 months of age but distinction between the caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte and the puppy line had not been established. The caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte was a distinct white line on the femoral neck while the puppy line was a less distinct line on the femoral neck, both were seen on the extended hip ventro-dorsal pelvic radiograph. Szabo et al. (2007) observed that a circumferential femoral head osteophyte was also associated with degenerative joint disease due to canine hip dysplasia. This radiographic finding was defined as a thick, indistinctly margined to thin, faint, radiopaque line encircling the junction of the femoral neck and head at the region of attachment of the joint capsule. Ginja et al. (2009) stated that radiographic studies could be separated into two main groups: (1) to evaluate joint congruence and to detect signs of osteoarthritis using the standard ventrodorsal hip extended view (SVDV) and (2) to provide information on HJL demonstrated by stress radiography (PennHIP, dorsolateral subluxation [DLS], Fluckiger and Half-Axial Position [HAP] methods).The authors also insisted that these radiographic techniques were to be performed under anaesthesia or heavy sedation, to facilitate accurate positioning and decrease the need for repeat films and human restraint.

13

Risler et al. (2009) stated that the age of 24 weeks, at which time the presence of a femoral neck line, termed caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte or Morgan line might be predictive of subsequent canine hip dysplasia and degenerative joint disease. If both caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte and a circumferential femoral head osteophyte were present at 24 to 27 weeks of age and radiographic signs of hip degenerative joint disease by one year of age were certain in large breeds of dogs. 2.6. QUANTITATIVE RADIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS

2.6.1. Norberg angle Olsson (1961) reported that Norberg angle (NA) was a measurement used in the evaluation of canine femoral head displacement from the aetabulum. The author stated that, for the depth to be considered normal, the cranial edge of the acetabulum had to be considerd normal. The cranial edge of the acetabulum had to be situated not less than 15° laterally to a line at right angles to the line between the centers of the femoral heads. Essentially, it was established that NA of <105 was indicative of abnormal hip status and it had to be measured on a hip extended radiographic projection. Smith et al. (1990) and Vezzoni et al. (2005) observed that the SVDV had been considered to lack sensitivity while detecting HJL because the standard position tightened the joint capsule, the ligaments of the femoral head and associated muscles. Corley (1992) recommended the Orthopaedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) guidelines commonly used in the United States for scoring of hip dysplasia. In that seven grades were used (three normal, one borderline and three dysplastic). Flückiger (1995) stated that there were other screening and scoring methods in other countries, such as the system used in Switzerland, which evaluated six parameters using a score of 0 to 5 (total score ranging from 0 to 30).

Heyman et al. the pelvis should be positioned symmetrically with the femurs parallel to each other and the patella superimposed over the centre of the femoral condyles. avoiding joint capsule tensioning. 2. with the rear limbs extended parallel to each other and the stifles internally rotated. To calculate the DI. compression and distraction. Genevois et al. (2008) stated that. The DI ranged from 0 to 1. Lack of muscle relaxation clearly influenced the HD score and was preferred by owners.14 Gibbs (1997) stated that the British Veterinary Association/Kennel Club scoring scheme was commonly used in UK and was based on a detailed points system for the assessment of radiographic features. with 0 representing full congruency of the hip joint and 1 representing complete luxation. The authors used a distractor but could . Federation Cynologique Internationale followed in France. Ginja et al. The total score thus ranged from 0 to 106. The distraction view was taken with the hips at a neutral position and maximally displaced laterally using the PennHIP distractor and was used to estimate HJL by calculating the distraction index (DI). The correct positioning of the dog was of utmost importance for an accurate radiographic interpretation. Nine parameters for each joint were evaluated and each parameter was given a score between 0 and 6 (except for one parameter which was scored 0 to 5). which does not require any sedation or anaesthesia for radiographic evaluation of hips. (1990) stated that the PennHIP method required appropriate training to certify users and incorporated three radiographic views of the dog in the supine position: hip-extended.2.6. (1993) positioned the hindlimbs at an 80° angle to the table top. the distance between the geometric centres of the acetabulum and the femoral head was divided by the radius of the femoral head. Distraction index Smith et al. (2008b) stated that the SVDV was a universal view that involves placing the dog in dorsal recumbency on the X-ray table.

a compression projection and a distraction projection. Hip laxity (DI) profiles vary among breeds. The degree of instability was quantified by a dimensionless distraction index (DI = d/r). but in general. Adams et al. Culp et al.0 weeks old pups might not correlate with PennHip measurements in the same dogs at one year of age. (2000) stated that distraction indices measured from radiographs in 6.3 had an . It incorporated 3 radiographic views: standard hipextended projection. The distraction radiograph was originally developed to quatitate the amount of passive hip laxity of the coxofemoral joint reported as a distraction index (DI). a DI of < 0.5 to 9. (1995) reported that Penn HIP(University of Pennsylvania Hip Improvement Program. (1993). (2006) reported that the linear correlation between NA and DI was (0. PA) method was another radiographic method to assess hip status.15 achieve lateral displacement only because there was no dorsal force component.70 at 7.3 weeks. Ginja et al. Philadelphia. The authors also studied hips with distraction index measurement greater than 0.452) in Labrador retriever breed of dogs and also reported that the concordance of positive susceptibility using 0. Dogs with DI values increased susceptibility for radiographic hip DJD as the DI increases. defined as the ratio of the distance from the center of the femoral head to the center of the acetabulum (d) and the radius of femoral head (r). According to Smith et al. (2008c) and Ginja et al. 24 per cent and 33 per cent developed degenerative joint disease by one year respectively. Popovitch et al. (1995) the admissible DI range for normal coxofemoral development varied among breeds.60 or greater than 0. (2009) found that HJL estimated using the distraction index in stress radiographs in dogs at 2 months and 4 months of age was correlated or associated with HJL and HD after 1 year of age.336) in German shepherd breed of dogs and (0. Lust et al.3 for all breeds signified minimal chance of developing radiographic DJD.

32 was 56 per cent and 44 per cent in German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs respectively. The degree of coxofemoral joint laxity could be evaluated reliably using the standard radiographic positioning of the dog with the hindlimbs pulled caudally and rotated inwards because SVDV method caused overextension of the hip joint and spiral tensioning of the nonelastic joint capsule that resulted in repositioning of a subluxated femoral head back into the acetabulum. proximal to the stifles and around the hocks. The hind limbs were fixed in an adducted position with medical tape.6. coxofemoral laxity was considered the most important factor promoting CHD. 2. Farese et al. (1999) stated that the Flückiger method to created the stress view of hip joint in the dogs placed in dorsal recumbency on the X-ray table. no manual restraint was required. (1998) reported that for DLS test. the dogs were placed in sternal recumbency in a ‘kneeling’ position on a foam containing openings for the hind limbs. the perpendicular distance between the most medial edge of the femoral head and the lateral margin of the cranial acetabulum was divided by the diameter of the femoral head. DLS test was specially indicated to evaluate the chondro-osseous conformation whereas DI represented passive laxity of the joint and was . The degree of laxity was calculated in the same way as the DI but was defined as the subluxation index. the stifles were adducted and manually pushed craniodorsally by the examiner during X-ray exposure. (1990) stated that. Dorsolateral Subluxation index Farese et al. The DLS showed a strong correlation with the DI in 8 month old dogs. To calculate the DLS score. (1999) found that DLS and DI measured different components of the hip joint.16 NA threshold of <105 and DI threshold of >0. 2. Subluxation index Smith et al. The femurs were positioned at a 60° angle to the table surface. The HJL was estimated by calculating the DLS score.3. Flückiger et al.6.4.

62 9.65 6. The authors noticed that intra.5 per cent.23 . (2002) calculated the mean central edge angle for normal and dysplastic dogs.5.6. 2.04 25.articular injection of 2 mL of sodium hyaluronate increased the mean DI by 56 per cent and decreased the mean DLS score minimally 2.25 2. as No signs of dysplasia Borderline hips joints Mild dysplasia Moderate dysplasia Severe dysplasia 16.55 10.14 11.17 independent of the potential stabilising effects of the acetabulum on femoral head positioned within the joint. Central edge angle Meomartino et al.6 11.91 12. Meomartino et al.6. Acetabular slope angle Slocum and Devine (1990) measured the acetabular slope angle from dorsal acetabular rim radiographic view for evaluation of acetabualr coverage.84 15. as No signs of dysplasia Borderline hips joints Mild dysplasia Moderate dysplasia Severe dysplasia 7. (2002) calculated the mean acetabular slope angle for normal and dysplastic dogs.6.

(2008) conservative management may be effective in palliating the discomfort associated with HD or HJL. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT 2.7. 1987) and others unfavourable (Farrell et al. some being considered favourable (Barr et al. 2. Physical therapy Riser (1975) stated that restricting exercise by confining puppies in a cage had been reported as an alternative for young dogs with a predisposition to HD development.3. (2008) reported that prevention of obesity was recommended as a way to decrease the stress placed on joints and periarticular tissues. (1992) studied that limiting food consumption to 75 per cent of the amount given to ad libitum-fed control dogs after 8 weeks of age resulted in a 67 per cent reduction in HD prevalence at 2 years of age. Neutraceuticals Lust et al. Vezzoni et al. (1992) stated that puppies treated prophylactically with intramuscular injections of poly-sulfated glycosaminoglycans showed less subluxation than untreated animals. 2008).. By confining a puppy in a small area they stay seated for long periods. this treatment was not recommended since such dogs did not develop socially. Dietary management Kealy et al.7.2.7. 2.1..7..18 2. . (2007) and Vezzoni et al. 2007 and Vezzoni et al. thereby maintaining an abduction-flexion position. A nonweight bearing activity such as swimming yielded positive benefits of exercise on muscle strength and cartilage nutrition without undesirable secondary effects. According to Manley et al. However. which supports a forced hip congruence. but was unlikely to prevent development and progression of osteoarthritis. The published outcomes of long-term results of non-surgical management of HD in dogs are controversial.

Ginja et al. (1987) observed that some chronic hip alterations (i. which resulted in spontaneous improvement in hind-limb function. Treatments were focused on alleviating pain and improving the function of the hip joints and quality of life. Johnson et al. defined as the ratio of additive genetic variance to the overall phenotypic variance. (2005) attempted the isolation of genetic markers for diagnosis of HD in dogs and they also found that complex segregation and molecular genetic analysis revealed that major dominant and recessives genes for HD existed in dogs. (2007). . (2007) reported that HD was generally diagnosed by worsening of symptoms when osteoarthritis was already at an advanced stage that renders conservative or surgical therapy practically useless to limit the development of the disease or its severity. few major genes were responsible for the major differences in favourable or unfavourable hip conformation.19 Barr et al. Chase et al. Janutta and Distl (2006) reported that the possible existence of major genes and the detection of quantitative trait loci associated with HD could be important for diagnosis and selection against HD. 2.e. (1998) and Farrell et al. (2004) and Todhunter et al. Since there were no definitive molecular diagnostic tests. (2008b) and Janutta et al.7. the animal’s genotype was estimated by evaluating hip phenotype. (2008) stated that active genetic control based on diagnostic tests for HD and selective breeding were the best tools to achieve genetic changes decreasing the disease to acceptable levels. which enabled the elimination of carriers from breeding programmes. bony remodelling. The relationship between phenotype and genotype resulted in the concept of heritability. Farrell et al. fibrosis and thickening of the joint capsule) actually improved joint congruity and stability. Genetic control Smith (1998) stated that controlling polygenic diseases like HD required selective breeding programmes.4.

20 Materials and Methods .

12 dogs were selected for the study and grouped. Reassessment : . Clinically hip dysplastic German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs were grouped into two groups of six numbers in each groups and subjected to hip assessment before and after skeletal maturity of long bones.1 Design of Experiment Based on the age of occurrence of clinical symptoms suggestive of hip dysplasia. After skeletal maturity: After nine months of age with a minimum interval of three months between the assessment.1 SELCTION OF CASES Dogs presented with clinical signs of hip dysplasia to the Small Animal Orthopedic unit of Madras Veterinary College Teaching Hospital were selected for the study (Plate 1).1. 3. Groups Group I Group II Breed German shepherd Labrador retriever : No of Animals 6 6 Hip Assessment Period Before skeletal maturity Before skeletal maturity After skeletal maturity After skeletal maturity Initial assessment Before skeletal maturity: Assessment was performed between four and nine months of age.20 CHAPTER III MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.

21 PLATE 1 CLINICAL SIGNS OF HIP DYSPLASIA .

1 Pain The degree of pain in hip dysplasia was assessed by a numerical rating system which was advocated by Hielm-Bjorkman et al. very reluctant = 3 and does not participate at all = 4.3. alert = 1. (1993). hardly ever = 1. willingly = 1. often = 3.3 CLINIAL SIGNS The following clinical signs of hip dysplasia were studied. reluctantly = 2.3.2 Lameness The degree of lameness was assessed by a score system suggested by Welsh et al. barely detectable lameness = 1. The individual lameness score of left and right hind legs in dogs of group I and group II was recorded. indifferent = 3 and very indifferent = 4. 3. vocalization scored as never = 0. (2003). The factors considered for pain assessment were `mood’ with a score very alert = 0.22 3. easily = 1. Walking. trotting. jumping and galloping were scored as very willingly = 0. Lying down and getting up was scored as with great ease = 0. obvious lameness =2. BREED AND SEX The incidence of hip dysplasia with regard to age. willingness to play games scored as very willing = 0. sometimes = 2. willing = 1. breed and sex of dogs were recorded in percentage. sometimes = 2. very reluctantly = 3 and does not participate in action at all = 4. severe head nod and resting the affected hind leg = 3. often =3 and very often =4. reluctant = 2. hardly ever = 1. neither easily nor with difficulty = 3 and with great difficulty = 4. The score assigned were clinically sound = 0. Problems with moving after long rest and exercise were scored as never = 0. neither nor indifferent = 2. carrying the leg at the trot = 4.2 INCIDENCE OF AGE. very often = 4. 3. 3. .

1986).4 HAEMATOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS 3. 3. 3.3.23 3.3 Physical palpation The physical palpation of the hip joints was performed in the dorsal recumbency using Ortolani method of palpation under general anesthesia prior to quantitative radiographic assessment (Chalman and Butler.1 Haematological Parameters EDTA sample of blood was collected and the haematological parameters such as haemoglobin. PCV. phosphorus.4. red blood cell count and differential count were recorded in both group I and II (Coles.3. Each femur was individually abducted to its limit.4. Biochemical parameters The serum samples were collected and the biochemical parameters such as calcium. Pressure was applied down the shaft of the femur towards the acetabulum.3. 3. 1985).1 Ortolani Sign The dog was positioned in dorsal recumbency and the examiner stood behind the animal and grasped the stifles firmly (with the femur perpendicular to the surface of the examination table). In dysplastic dogs downwards pressure on the femur elicited audible or palpable “clunk” as the subluxated femur was reduced (Chalman and Butler. serum alkaline phosphatase and total protein were estimated in group I and II. . 1985). The presence or absence of Ortolani sign was recorded in percentage in group I and group II dogs. A palpable or audible “clunk” during the technique was known as a positive Ortolani sign.2.

04mg/kg intramuscularly and sedated with xylazine at the dose rate of 1mg/kg intramuscularly and general anaesthesia was induced with ketamine (at the dose rate of 5mg/kg) and diazepam (at the dose rate of 0.5 cm) in small breeds in order to relive excessive tension of pelvic muscles (Rendano and Ryan.125mg/kg) combination (4 ml of Ketamine 50mg/ml + 1 ml of diazepam 5mg/ml) to effect and maintained by half the dose of induction.24 3.5cm) above the table top in giant breeds of dogs and 2 to 3 inches (5 to 7.6. The paws were placed 4 to 5 inches (10 to 12. The hind limbs were rotated medially to superimpose the patella over the sagittal plane of femurs and the femurs were kept parallel to each other and along with the long axis of the veretebrae.6.1 Hip Extended view The anaesthetized dog was positioned in dorsal recumbency and the cranial position of the patient was supported with the aid of sand bags (Plate 2). ANAESTHETIC PROTOCOL The dogs were premedicated with atropine sulphate at the dose rate of 0. 3. 3. 1985).5.6 QUANTITATIVE RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT All the twelve dogs were anaesthetized and subjected to the following six different quantitative radiographic hip assessment methods before skeletal maturity of long bones. as and when required.1 Radiographic signs The radiographic signs suggestive of hip dysplasia in dogs were studied from the standard hip extended view. 3. .1. The radiographic signs such as subluxation of femoral head and presence or absence of remodeling changes were observed and recorded. The hind limbs were held at the level of the hocks and pulled in a distal caudal direction.

STANDARD VENTRO DORSAL VIEW .25 PLATE 2 POSITIONING THE DOG FOR NORBERG ANGLE ASSESSMENT .

The DI was calculated from the following formula DI =d/r. 3. 2000) (Plate 3). the examiner pushed the knees together.. Even and firm downward force on the distractor helped to maintain pelvic positioning while manipulation was performed. measured in centimeter.6. the dog was positioned in dorsal recumbency.1. Distraction was maintained for a short duration sufficient enough to permit exposure of the radiographic film (Plate 5).2 Norberg angle The standard hip extended radiographic view was used for measurement of Norberg angle. Each femoral head center was then connected to the tangential line of the ipsilateral cranial dorsal acetabular edges.separation distance after the distraction between the femoral head center and acetabular centre of each hip joint. using the device as a fulcrum to impose a lateral distractive force on the hip joints. The spacing of the distractor bars was set at approximately with the interacetabular distance. . The angle subtended by the tangential line of the dorsal acetabular edge and the line joining the femoral head centers was the Norberg angle (Adams et al. (Plate 6) d.26 3. A fabricated adjustable wooden frame aluminium distractor (Plate 4) was placed between the hind-legs.6.2 Distraction view and distraction index: For radiography of the hips in the distraction view. While grasping the hocks. The femoral head centers were found and joined by a straight line. This spacing allowed for the proper stance-phase distance between the knees during force application of the distraction procedure. and an assistant firmly pressed it down onto the pelvis.

27 PLATE 3 RADIOGRAPH SHOWING THE MEASUREMENT OF NORBREG ANGLE FROM STANDARD VENTRO DORSAL VIEW .

28 PLATE 4 CUSTOM DEVICED DISTRACTOR USED FOR DISTRACTION INDEX ASSESSMENT .

29 PLATE 5 POSITIONING THE DOG FOR DISTRACTION INDEX ASSESSMENT .DISTRACTION VIEW .

30 PLATE 6 RADIOGRAPH SHOWING THE MEASUREMENT OF DISTRACTION INDEX FROM DISTRACTION VIEW .

proximal to the stifle for the DLS test. permitting dorsolateral subluxation of the femoral heads. 1998).. The hips were slightly extended so that the diaphyses were nearly perpendicular to the table but not superimposed over the femoral heads and acetabulae. 1990) 3. The hole in the pad allowed the stifle to have direct contact with the table and transmit force along the longitudinal axis of the femur to the hip joints. The dog were positioned in sternal recumbency an a kneeling position on a foam pad. The hocks were adducted and held together with tape. The image was evaluated for positioning and symmetry on the doesoventral radiographic projection (Plate 8). It was calculated from the formula DLS score = d/Ø×100 (Plate 9) d is the distance between the perpendicular lines dropped from the dorsal cranial acetabular edge and the perpendicular lines from the line joining the dorsal acetabular edges tangential to the femoral head of eah side of the coxofemoral joint and Ø is the diameter of the femoral head of each side of the coxofemoral joint (Farese et al.(Smith et al. with their hock joints extended..3 Dorsoventral view for Dorsolateral subluxation score: The hind limbs of the anaesthetized dogs were positioned in an adducted position with medial tape. The DLS was a percentage calculated from the dorsoventral projection view in a DLS test. Cotton was packed within the cut opening between the foam pad and the thighs of the dog to help in proper positioning of the hind limb.31 r – radius of the femoral head of that particular hip joint measured in centimeters. . hind paws and trochanter were checked for symmetry from the lateral and caudal aspects. the stifles flexed and placed through a cut opening of 7`` diameter in the foam pad measuring 45”×24” ×4” (Plate 7).6. The hocks.

32 PLATE 7 POSITIONING FOAM BED USED FOR DORSOLATERAL SUBLUXATION INDEX ASSESSMENT .

WEIGHT BEARING VIEW .33 PLATE 8 POSITIONING THE DOG FOR DORSOLATERAL SUBLUXATION INDEX ASSESSMENT .

34 PLATE 9 RADIOGRAPH SHOWING THE MEASUREMENT OF DORSOLATERAL SUBLUXATION INDEX FROM WEIGHT BEARING VIEW .

Central edge angle was defined by two straight lines originating from the centre of the femoral head of each hip joint (Plate 11). The hind limbs were pulled forward.35 3. 3.4.2 Acetabular slope angle Acetabular slope angle was formed by a straight line tangential to the acetabulum at the point of lateral contact with the femoral head and by a line normal to the mid sagittal line (Meomartino et al. b.6.4...6. This position helped to prevent any rotation in the positioning of the dog on its sternum (Slocum and Devine. This placed a pull on the hamstring muscle and drew the tuber ischii cranially with respect to the tuber sacrale. so that the femurs were parallel with the long axis of the body. This was to pull the femurs close to the dog`s body.6. A belt was placed around the dog thighs and torso. The ideal position of the pelvis was vertical alignment of tuber ischii and tuber sacrale with both the ischiatic tuberosities on the radiographic table. Tangential to the acetabular rim and Parallel to the mid sagittal line respectively (Meomartino et al. 2002). The hocks were raised by placing 2 inch tape underneath the tubercalcis. a. The stifles were flexed so that the tibia was 90° to the femur and the hip was internally rotated 45 so that on the radiograph the greater trochanters did not usually interface with the dorsal acetabular rim. 2002) (Plate 11). 1990).4 Dorsal acetabular rim view Under general anesthesia. 3.1 Central edge angle The Central edge angle was calculated from the dorsal accetabular rim view. . the dog was positioned in sternal reumbency. This caused the pelvis to be aligned vertically so the x-ray beam passed through the shaft of the ilium (Plate 10).

36 PLATE 10 POSITIONING THE DOG FOR CENTRAL EDGE ANGLE AND ACETABULAR SLOPE ANGLE ASSESSMENT .DORSAL ACETABULAR RIM VIEW .

37 PLATE 11 RADIOGRAPH SHOWING THE MEASUREMENT OF CENTRAL EDGE ANGLE AND ACETABULAR SLOPE ANGLE FROM DORSAL ACETABULAR RIM VIEW .

5 Stress radiographic view This stress view was taken with the dog placed in dorsal recumbency. dorsal. exposure was increased by 30% compared with the standard technique. Such manipulation resulted in cranial.6.3-0. Maximal subluxation was assumed as long as the radiographic angle formed by the line connecting the two femoral heads and the femoral longitudinal axis did not exceed 90° on each side.7 >0. Femurs were positioned at 60° angle to the table top.5 (Ratio) (Percentage) (Degree) (Degree) (Ratio) DI DLS CEA ASA SI . 1995 and Fluckiger et al. the tibia served as a lever.3 0. to separate the results of the two dislocation techniques from each other. stifles were adducted and manually pushed craniodorsally by a tester during exposure. The degree of laxity was quantified identical to the DI method described by Smith et al.3 0.3-0. (1995) but was termed subluxation index (SI) instead (Plate 13).38 3.7 >60 40-60 <40 >16 6-16 <6 <7 7-25 >25 <0. was tolerated. 1999) 3. and lateral displacement of the femoral head in an unstable hip joint (Plate 12). A slight pelvic tilt over the long axis. (Fluckiger.. reflected by a difference of the obturator foramina diameters of up to 5 mm at their broadest.5 >0. As more muscle tissue had to be penetrated.7 DEGREE OF HIP DYSPLASIA IN DIFFERENT QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT METHODS Degree of NA hip (Degree) dysplasia Normal Moderate Severe >105 90-105 <90 <0.

60 DEGREE STRESS VIEW .39 PLATE 12 POSITIONING THE DOG FOR SUBLUXATION INDEX ASSESSMENT .

40 PLATE 13 RADIOGRAPH SHOWING THE MEASUREMENT OF SUBLUXATION INDEX FROM 60 DEGREE STRESS VIEW .

The quantitative radiographic assessments of hip were repeated after skeletal maturity of long bones in all twelve cases from group I and group II. .8 Statistical analysis The score obtained from the above six quantitative radiographic methods were recorded.41 Management and feeding schedule were advised during skeletal maturity period. The initial and final scores of hip assessment before and after skeletal maturity period were correlated and analyzed statistically. The data obtained were analyzed statistically and discussed critically. 3. The score obtained from the above six quantitative radiographic methods were statistically correlated with each other and the best related methods were identified and discussed critically.

42

Results

42

CHAPTER IV RESULTS
4.1. INCIDENCE

4.1.1 Age Of the 322 dogs examined during the study period 46.27 per cent (149 dogs) were in the age group of less than 1 year, 31.67 per cent (102 dogs) were in the age group between 1-6 years and 22.04 per cent (71 dogs) were in the age group more than 6 years. (Figure 1) 4.1.2 Sex Of the 322 dogs studied 57.45 per cent (185 dogs) were males and 42.54 per cent (137 dogs) were females. (Figure 2) 4.1.3 Size of the animal Of the 322 dogs studied, small sized dogs weighing 1-10 kgs had an incidence of 13.04 per cent (42 dogs), medium sized dogs weighing 11-25 kgs had an incidence of 8.69 per cent (28 dogs) and large breeds weighing 26 kgs and above had a high incidence of 78.26 per cent (252 dogs). (Table 1) 4.1.4 Breed Among the 322 dogs observed, Labrador Retrievers had a high incidence of hip dysplasia in 44.09 per cent (142 dogs), German shepherd dogs 16.14 per cent (52 dogs), Doberman 3.72 per cent (12 dogs), Golden Retrievers 2.48 per cent (8 dogs), Rottweiler 3.10 per cent (10 dogs), Great Dane 5.59 per cent (18 dogs), Mastiff 0.62 per cent (2 dogs) and Saint Bernard 2.48 per cent (8 dogs). (Figure 3)

43

Figure 1: Age wise incidence of hip dysplasia

71

149

< 1 yr 1-6 yr >6 yr

102

Figure 2: Sex wise incidence of hip dysplasia

Female

137

Male

185

0

50

100

150

200

44 Table 1 Incidence of Hip dysplasia based on size of the animal Size of animal Name of the breed Spitz Lashapso Small sized (1-10kgs) Pug Terrier Daschund Cross breed Medium sized (11-25 kgs) Dalmation Siberian Husky Labrador retriever German shepherd Doberman Large sized (26 kgs and above) Golden retriever Rottweiler Great Dane Mastiff Saint Bernard No of animals 24 3 6 3 6 20 6 2 142 52 12 8 10 18 2 8 .

45 Figure3: Incidence in Large sized breeds Large sized breeds 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 12 8 10 52 18 2 142 8 .

(Table 3) In group II during pre skeletal maturity period 50 per cent of dogs (three nos) were with a score of four.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) with a pain score of three and 16. 50.00 per cent of dogs (three nos) with a pain score of four. (Table 3) .2.67 per cent of dogs (four nos) were with a pain score of four and 33.46 4. Whereas.67 per cent of dogs were (one no) with a pain score of four. (Table 2) In group II during pre skeletal maturity period 66. 33.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) with a pain score of three and 50 per cent of dogs (three nos) with a pain score of two. 50.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) with a score of three and 50.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) with a pain score of three.00 per cent of dogs (three nos) with a score of three and 16. during post skeletal maturity period 16.67 per cent of dogs (one no) with a score of two. during post skeletal maturity period 16.67 per cent of dogs (one no) with a score of two. Whereas.67 per cent of dogs (one no) were with a score of four.00 per cent of dogs (three nos) were with a score of four.2. 33. 33.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) with a score of three and 16.00 per cent of dogs (three nos) with a pain score of three and 16.67 per cent of dogs (one no) with a pain score of two. during post skeletal maturity period 50.2 Lameness In group I during pre skeletal maturity period 50.67 per cent of dogs (one no) with a score of two.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) were with a score of four. 33. Whereas.2 CLINICAL SYMPTOMS 4. 33.1 Pain In group I during pre skeletal maturity period 33. (Table 2) 4. during post skeletal maturity period 33.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) with a score of three and 16.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) were with a pain score of four.00 per cent of dogs (three nos) with a score of two.67 per cent of dogs (one no) with a pain score of two. Whereas.

47 Table 2 Pain scoring in Group I and Group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Group I Dog No Pre skeletal maturity period 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 4 3 2 3 Post skeletal maturity period 4 2 3 2 2 3 Group II Pre skeletal maturity period 4 4 3 4 3 4 Post skeletal maturity period 4 4 2 3 3 4 .

48 Table 3 Lameness scoring in Group I and Group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Group I Dog No Pre skeletal maturity period 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 4 3 2 4 Post skeletal maturity period 4 2 3 2 2 3 Group II Pre skeletal maturity period 4 3 2 4 3 4 Post skeletal maturity period 4 3 2 3 3 4 .

67 per cent of dogs (one no) exhibited unilateral positive Ortolani sign and the remaining 83.38±0. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 12. (P<0.3. No significant difference in haemoglobin values.3.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) exhibited bilateral positive Ortolani sign and the remaining 33. (P<0.38±2.28 respectively (Table 5).4.4.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) did not show positive Ortolani sign. during pre skeletal maturity period 33. Whereas.28 and 12.2 Packed Cell Volume The mean packed cell volume (percentage) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 33.4 HAEMATOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS 4.39 and 12.1 Ortolani sign In group I dogs. (Table 4) In group II dogs.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) exhibited bilateral positive Ortolani sign and the remaining 50.33 per cent of dogs (two nos) exhibited unilateral positive Ortolani sign.67 per cent of dogs (one no) exhibited unilateral positive Ortolani sign.00±0.49 4. Whereas. 33.00 per cent of dogs (three nos) did not show positive Ortolani sign. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 33. PHYSICAL PALPATION FINDINGS 4.02 and 32.55 and 33. both during pre skeletal maturity period and post skeletal maturity period 16.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed. (Table 4) 4.45±0.1 Haemoglobin The mean haemoglobin (g/dl) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 12.28 respectively (Table 6).33 per cent of dogs (five nos) exhibited bilateral positive Ortolani sign. No significant difference in packed cell volume values.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed. 4.66±2.78±2.81 respectively (Table 6).46 respectively (Table 5). . during post skeletal maturity period 16.48±0. Whereas. 33.51±2.

50 Table 4 Ortolani sign in Group I and Group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Group I Dog No Pre skeletal maturity period 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bilateral Unilateral Bilateral Negative Negative Unilateral Post skeletal maturity period Bilateral Unilateral Bilateral Negative Negative Negative Group II Pre skeletal maturity period Bilateral Bilateral Unilateral Bilateral Bilateral Bilateral Post skeletal maturity period Bilateral Bilateral Unilateral Bilateral Bilateral Bilateral .

30 respectively (Table 5).4.77±0.47 and 21.26±0.33±0.53 respectively (Table 5).3 Red Blood Cell count Red blood cell count (millions/cumm) in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 5.51 4.38 and 18375±2185.4 White Blood Cell count White blood cell count (per cumm) in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 14683. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 14950±1510.33±2033. Whereas. 4.67±0.4.5 Neutrophils Neutrophil count (percentage) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 83.14 and 5.4.83±1.62 and 79.57±0. Whereas. (P<0.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed.18 respectively (Table 5). Whereas. .83±0.67±1. Whereas. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 20. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 77.39 respectively (Table 6). 4. (P<0.28 respectively (Table 6). values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 5. No significant difference in white blood cell count.21 and 5.84 respectively (Table 5).33±1. (P<0.03 respectively (Table 6).78 and 15300±1926.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed.02 respectively (Table 6).83±1. No significant difference in red blood cell count.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed. 4. No significant difference in neutrophil count.6 Lymphocytes Lymphocyte count (percentage) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 16.84 and 80.4.00±1.47±0.57 and 17.

67±0.4.17 and 6. Whereas.10±10. No significant difference in albumin values.81±10. 4.76±0.09 and 2.16 respectively (Table 5).48±13.4. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 89. .08 and 165. (P<0.52 No significant difference in lymphocyte count. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 6. (P<0.7 Serum Alkaline Phosphatase Serum alkaline phosphatase (IU/lit) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 165.12±0. 4.8 Total Protein Total protein (g/dl) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 6. No significant difference in Serum alkaline phosphatase values.08 and 146.72±0.10 respectively (Table 6). No significant difference in total protein values.34 respectively (Table 5).57±0.20 and 6. (P<0.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed.9 Albumin Albumin (g/dl) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 3.46±15.10±0.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed.09 respectively (Table 5).02 respectively (Table 6).09 and 3. Whereas. Whereas. (P<0.09 respectively (Table 6).4.35±0.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 2.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed. 4.30±0.

49 respectively (Table 5).83 and 11.00 per cent (<90 degree) were severely dysplastic.33 per cent (>105 degree) were normal. (P<0.33 per cent (<90 degree) were severely dysplastic. (P<0.00 per cent (90-105 degree) moderate and 16.31±0.53 and 6.53 4. during post skeletal maturity period 33.16±0. No significant difference in phosphorus values.4. 100.11 Phosphorus Phosphorus (mg/dl) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 5.84±0.67 per cent (<90 degree) severely dysplastic. 4.05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed.5.67 per cent (<90 degree) were severely dysplastic. during post skeletal maturity period.10 Calcium Calcium (mg/dl) values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 11. (Table 9.5 QUANTITATIVE RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT 4.49±0.61±0.52±0. Whereas. Whereas.72 respectively (Table 5).27±0. the Norberg angle was moderate in 58. 50.83 respectively (Table 6). No significant difference in calcium values.67 per cent (90-105 degree) were moderate and 83. 10) .05) between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period in Group I and Group II were observed. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 7.4.58 and 5.70 respectively (Table 6). values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 10.1 Norberg angle Of the twelve hips studied in Group I dogs during pre skeletal maturity period. Whereas.42 and 15. (Table 7. 4.33 per cent (90-105 degree) and 41. 16.69±0. 8) Out of the twelve hips studied in Group II dogs during pre skeletal maturity period. Whereas.

45±0.55 33.84 1.54 Table 5 Haematological and biochemical parameters in group I dogs Pre skeletal maturity period 12.31 16.66±2.78 15300±1926.24 0.38±0.18 0.57 17.16 3.90 0.46 0.52 165.47±0.62 0.33±0.61±0.53 0.83±1.20 3.09 11.28 Parameter Haemoglobin (g/dl) Packed cell volume (percentage) Red Blood Cell (millions/cumm) White Blood Cell (per cumm) Neutrophils (percentage) Lymphocytes (percentage) Serum Alkaline Phosphatase (IU/lit) Total Protein (g/dl) Albumin (g/dl) Calcium (mg/dl) Phosphorus (mg/ dl) t-Test P-value 0.56 14683.76±0.33±2033.81±10.30 0.12±0.92 6.18 0.52 .49 1.08 165.11 0.09 11.44 0.69 0.48±13.55 0.31±0.78±2.57±0.52±0.39 Post skeletal maturity period 12.12 0.35±0.84 80.83±1.10 0.33±1.69±0.83 5.37 0.52 83.34 0.68 0.72 5.10±0.21 5.97 0.69 0.67 33.82 5.58 6.

15 0.00±0.03 0.38 18375±2185.14 5.28 Post skeletal maturity period 12.83 6.88 89.38±2.84±0.94 0.28 Parameter Haemoglobin (g/dl) Packed cell volume (percentage) Red Blood Cell (millions/cumm) White Blood Cell (per cumm) Neutrophils (percentage) Lymphocytes (percentage) Serum Alkaline Phosphatase (IU/lit) Total Protein (g/dl) Albumin (g/dl) Calcium (mg/dl) Phosphorus (mg/ dl) t-Test P-value 0.26±0.10 0.13 0.90 6.44 0.28 2.72±0.02 1.02 32.67±0.78 0.47 21.48±0.56 77.17 2.09 2.46±15.31 0.70 1.00±1.81 1.77±0.12 0.43 0.49±0.16±0.10 15.53 6.39 0.67 .83±0.92 0.62 0.27±0.67±0.42 7.69 0.08 146.55 Table 6 Haematological and biochemical parameters in group II dogs Pre skeletal maturity period 12.30±0.67±1.10±10.62 79.32 5.52 33.51±2.09 10.27 20.02 0.10 0.21 0.05 14950±1510.57±0.

78±0. 12) 4. in group II no significance (0. 8) Out of the twelve hips studied in Group II dogs during pre skeletal maturity period 100. Whereas. in group II no significant (0. Whereas.7) were severely dysplastic.92±3.33 per cent (>0.01 level) in group I values between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period with respect to DI. Whereas.56 and 95.63±0.29 respectively.71 and 82.56 Mean ± Standard error of Norberg angle values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 90.01 level) in group I values between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period with respect to Norberg angle. (Table 11.67 per cent (<0.05 level) was found between pre and post skeletal maturity period with respect to DI.7) were moderate and 83.7) were severely dysplastic. Whereas.3-0.05 level) change was found between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period. (Table 9.01 respectively. 10) Mean ± Standard error of DI values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 0.00 per cent (>0.2 Distraction index Of the twelve hips studied in Group I dogs during pre skeletal maturity period.3) were normal.7) were severely dysplastic. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 0.009 and 0.00±0. 58. (Table 7.7) were moderate and 41.7) were severely dysplastic.66 respectively. 12) Statistical analysis revealed high significance (0.67 per cent (0.3-0. 12) Statistical analysis revealed high significance (0.7) were moderate and 25.5.06 respectively.67±3. during post skeletal maturity period 16. (Table 11.05 and 0. 58.54±0.00 per cent (>0. Whereas.3-0.75±0. Whereas.33 per cent (0. 12) .83±1. (Table 11. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 85.67 per cent (>0. (Table 11.33 per cent (0. during post skeletal maturity period 16.

05 and 48. (Table 7.57 4.33 per cent (<6 degree) were severely dysplastic. Whereas.00 per cent (6-16 degree) were moderately dysplastic.4 Central edge angle Of the twelve hips studied in Group I dogs the central edge angle during pre skeletal maturity period 91.24±4.67 per cent . during post skeletal maturity period 33.00 per cent (>16 degree) were normal and 50. during post skeletal maturity period 33. 8) In Group II dogs the central edge angle during pre skeletal maturity period. (Table 7. 8) Out of the twelve hips studied in Group II dogs during pre skeletal maturity period 100.3 Dorsolateral subluxation score Of the twelve hips studied in Group I dogs during pre skeletal maturity period 66. 16. Whereas.51 respectively.67 per cent (6-16 degree) were moderate and 88.33 per cent (<40 percentage) were severely dysplastic.41±4. during post skeletal maturity period.01 level) in group I values between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period with respect to DLSI. Whereas.33 per cent (<6 degree) were severely dysplastic.33 per cent (>60 percentage) were normal. (Table 9.33 per cent (40-60 percentage) were moderate and 33. (Table 11.33 per cent (<40 percentage) were severely dysplastic. in group II no significance was observed between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period.87±1. 12) 4.92±3. during post skeletal maturity period 50. 12) Statistical analysis revealed high significance (0. values in group II during pre and post skeletal maturity period were 27.47 and 26.5. Whereas. 33.00 per cent (<40 percentage) were severely dysplastic.33 per cent (40-60 percentage) were moderate and 66.42 respectively. (Table 11.67 per cent (6-16 degree) were moderate and 8.67 per cent (40-60 percentage) were moderate and 33. Whereas.67 per cent (<40 percentage) were severely dysplastic. 10) Mean ± Standard error of dorsolateral subluxation score values in group I during pre and post skeletal maturity period were 43.5. 16. Whereas.

Whereas. 10) Mean ± Standard error of Central edge angle values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 11.70 respectively.35 and 22. 12) 4. 33.5.67 per cent (>25 degree) were severely dysplastic. (Table 11. Whereas.50±2.02 and 8. In group II also no significance (0. (Table 9.37 respectively. Whereas. Whereas.33 per cent (<6 degree) were severely dysplastic.40 respectively. Whereas. (Table 11. 50.01 level) in group I values between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period with respect to CEA.99 and 13.05 level) in group I values between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period with respect to ASA.58±1. in group II also high significance (0.01 level) was found between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period.33 per cent (7-25 degree) were moderate and 66.67±2.5 Acetabular slope angle In Group I dogs the acetabular slope angle during pre skeletal maturity period 100. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 5. (Table 11.00 per cent (7-25 degree) was moderate. (Table 11.05 level) was found between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period.00 per cent (7-25 degree) were moderately dysplastic.33 per cent (>25 degree) were severely dysplastic.00 per cent (<7 degree) were normal and 50. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 22. 12) Statistical analysis revealed no significance (0.67 per cent (<7 degree) were normal. 12) Statistical analysis revealed high significance (0.75±2.58 (>16 degree) were normal. 8) Out of the twelve hips studied in Group II dogs during pre skeletal maturity period. 10) Mean ± Standard error of acetabular slope angle values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 15.50±1. 12) . 50 per cent (7-25 degree) were moderate and 33. (Table 7.25±1.00 and 15.25±1.00 per cent (6-16 degree) were moderate and 33. during post skeletal maturity period 16.25±1. during post skeletal maturity period 50. (Table 9.78 respectively.

5.04 and 0.90 and 0. (Table 7.91 during pre and post skeletal maturity period respectively.33 per cent (0. Norberg angle positively correlated with Dorsolateral subluxation index with highly significant values (0.029 respectively. 58.42±0.05 level) of 0.3-0.5 degree) were severely dysplastic.01 level) of 0.00 per cent (>0. Whereas.33 per cent (0.3-0. during post skeletal maturity period 16.5 degree) were severely dysplastic.05 level) found between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period. 0.5 degree) were moderate and 91.89. (Table 11.67 per cent (>0.70±0.6.5 degree) and severely dysplastic in 41. (Table 9.3 degree) were normal.87.01 and 0.67 per cent (<0.59 4. (Table 13) . 12) 4.67 per cent (>0. Whereas. values in group II during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 0. Whereas.5 degree). 12) Statistical analysis revealed high significance (0. 10) Mean ± Standard error of subluxation index values in group I during pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period were 0. in group II no significance (0. (Table 11.1 Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group I dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Norberg angle negatively correlated with Distraction index and Subluxation index with significant values (0.51±0. 8) Out of the twelve hips studied for subluxation index in Group II dogs during pre skeletal maturity period 100. Whereas. during post skeletal maturity period 8.95 and 0. 0.5 degree) were moderate and 25.01 level) in group I values between pre skeletal and post skeletal maturity period with respect to SI.33 per cent (0.6 CORRELATION BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT 4. Whereas.3-0.00 per cent (>0.72±0.6 Subluxation index The subluxation index in Group I dogs during pre skeletal maturity period was moderate in 58.78 during pre and post skeletal maturity period respectively.5 degree) were severely dysplastic.04 respectively.

00 88.80 0.60 0.00 88.00 100.50 1 L R 2 L R 3 L R 4 L R 5 L R 6 L .00 95.00 60.00 69.35 0.32 0.55 0.30 35.70 0.65 DLSI 21.00 30.80 0.40 0.35 0.00 82.00 58.60 0.67 0.00 44.00 DI 0.45 0.30 53.00 CEA 6 5 8 12 10 13 14 12 14 15 14 15 ASA 22 24 18 24 22 20 8 10 8 9 10 8 SI 0.00 100.50 0.88 0.40 0.45 0.00 58.00 102.60 Table 7 Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group I dogs during pre skeletal maturity period Dog No Hip R NA 68.10 21.00 42.00 95.79 0.00 55.00 100.65 0.00 104.35 0.72 0.30 0.86 0.25 43.

00 15 12 25 24 0.40 0.65 78.00 90.40 0.30 Hip Rt NA 75.00 DI 0.20 6 13 23 20 0.00 62.00 20 18 4 6 0.50 0.00 48.00 20 18 6 5 0.20 98.00 0.65 0.68 68.20 0.45 108.30 37.00 16 18 23 4 0.40 0.40 CEA 7 ASA 20 SI 0.40 110.20 47.50 22.00 107.00 20 4 0.00 0.82 0.00 92.60 0.60 0.55 50.00 0.80 39.00 0.30 64.61 Table 8 Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group I dogs during post skeletal maturity period Dog no 1 Lt Rt 2 Lt Rt 3 Lt Rt 4 Lt Rt 5 Lt Rt 6 Lt 100.75 56.00 90.60 .00 0.30 94.80 DLSI 23.00 106.28 61.20 0.00 0.

00 21.65 .72 21.75 0.72 0.75 35.50 28.00 85.00 86.75 25.75 0.72 86.68 Hip Rt NA 82.75 0.00 4 4 28 26 0.00 4 12 26 5 0.80 25.75 85.00 0.00 38.00 87.00 14 5 6 26 0.62 Table 9 Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group II dogs during pre skeletal maturity period Dog no 1 Lt Rt 2 Lt Rt 3 Lt Rt 4 Lt Rt 5 Lt Rt 6 Lt 82.75 DLSI 25.00 80.00 3 5 28 24 0.72 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.75 30.00 0.00 0.68 0.72 0.80 28.80 0.65 88.70 86.00 0.20 4 26 0.00 88.00 25.00 32.75 85.50 5 3 24 28 0.20 CEA 4 ASA 26 SI 0.70 0.00 DI 0.

85 83.00 9 16 23 3 0.50 0.00 CEA 4 ASA 30 SI 0.85 0.78 19.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 8 4 24 0.00 8 3 22 32 0.00 9 9 25 23 0.00 20.00 82.00 0.75 Hip Rt NA 80.70 16.00 3 8 32 22 0.00 4 30 0.65 0.80 0.00 0.80 DLSI 20.00 90.65 0.00 44.63 Table 10 Quantitative Radiographic measurements in group II dogs during post skeletal maturity period Dog no 1 Lt Rt 2 Lt Rt 3 Lt Rt 4 Lt Rt 5 Lt Rt 6 Lt 80.00 16.00 75.00 83.75 0.00 DI 0.78 96.78 0.70 82.60 75.85 20.00 19.00 0.85 0.78 42.72 84.00 0.80 20.80 45.70 .00 42.00 84.73 0.

25 13.01) .25 9.85 8.29 0.05 4.54 48.99 0.04 3.41 11.05) Statistically highly significant (P 0.67 0.92 0.63 43.42 ±SE 3.42 1.00 0.06 4.91 7.56 0.63 1.14 6.00 1.25 0.64 Table 11 Paired `t`-Test in group I dogs during Pre and Post skeletal maturity period Pre skeletal QHAT No of hips maturity period Mean NA DI DLSI CEA ASA SI 12 12 12 12 12 12 90.67 0.00 ** ** ** ** NS ** tTest P– Value Result NS ** : : Statistically not significant (P > 0.50 15.51 ±SE 3.00 0.00 0.08 0.04 Post skeletal maturity period Mean 95.05 1.49 0.40 2.24 15.00 0.70 0.

37 2.39 0.00 0.87 5.25 22.02 2.71 0.78 26.70 ±SE 0.38 0.72 ±SE 1.69 0.35 0.50 0.01 3.05) Statistically highly significant (P 0.51 1.00 1.78 0.83 0.40 4.47 1.75 0.78 0.65 Table 12 Paired `t`-Test in group II dogs during Pre and Post skeletal maturity period QHAT No of hips NA DI DLSI CEA ASA SI 12 12 12 12 12 12 Group I Mean 85.19 0.75 27.58 22.26 0.00 0.66 0.27 0.92 8.84 P– Value 0.17 1.41 NS NS NS ** NS NS Result NS ** : : Statistically not significant (P > 0.02 tTest 1.01 Group II Mean 82.01) .

05 level) of 0.89 only during post skeletal maturity period and Distraction index negatively correlated with Central edge angle with significant values (0.83 and 0. (Table 14) . (Table 13) 4.66 Distraction index negatively correlated with Dorsolateral subluxation index with significant values (0. Subluxation index and Acetabular slope angle with significant values of 0. Whereas.87 during pre and post skeletal maturity period respectively. (Table 13) The Dorsolateral subluxation index negatively correlated with Subluxation index with significant values (0. Whereas.01 level) of 0. Norberg angle positively correlated with Central edge angle with significant value (0.05 level) of 0.6. Distraction index positively correlated with Subluxation index with highly significant values (0.01 level) of 0.92 during pre and post skeletal maturity period respectively.05 level) of 0.95 during pre and post skeletal maturity period respectively.93.92 only during post skeletal maturity period. Whereas.2 Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period Norberg angle negatively correlated with Distraction index.05 level) of 0.05 level) of 0.80 only during post skeletal maturity period respectively.96 only during post skeletal maturity period. (Table 14) Distraction index positively correlated with Subluxation index with highly significant values (0.98 and 0. Distraction index positively correlated with Acetabular slope angle with significant values (0.88 and 0. (Table 14) Central edge angle negatively correlated with Acetabular slope angle with highly significant values (0.87 and 0.93 only during post skeletal maturity period respectively.05 level) of 0.97 during pre and post skeletal maturity period respectively.89 and 0.88 and 0.94 and 0.01 level) of 0. (Table 14) Subluxation index negatively correlated with Dorsolateral subluxation index and Central edge angle with significant values (0. 0.90 during pre and post skeletal maturity period respectively.

90 0.76 0.61 -0.87 -0.72 ASA 1 1 0.68 -0.91 0.89 -0.76 -0.65 -0.74 0.86 -0.89 -0.92 DLSI 1 1 0.94 0.87 CEA 1 1 -0.76 -0.66 SI 1 1 .70 0.78 0.67 Table 13 Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group I dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period NA QHAT Pre Post Pre DI DLSI CEA ASA SI Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post NA 1 1 -0.88 -0.69 0.90 -0.70 -0.63 0.78 DI 1 1 -0.60 -0.70 -0.92 -0.95 0.

97 -0.68 Table 14 Correlation between Quantitative Radiographic Assessment Techniques in group II dogs during pre and post skeletal maturity period NA QHAT Pre Post Pre DI DLSI CEA ASA SI Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post NA 1 1 -0.96 0.98 -0.22 0.38 0.92 -0.32 -0.78 SI 1 1 .62 -0.93 -0.93 -0.75 CEA 1 1 -0.61 -0.18 -0.02 -0.38 -0.13 -0.43 -0.65 -0.48 -0.80 ASA 1 1 -0.87 DI 1 1 -0.89 0.09 0.23 0.83 0.27 0.30 -0.77 0.95 DLSI 1 1 0.

69 Discussion .

disproportionate skeletal and muscular growth. These findings concurred with the observation of Bennett and May (1995). male dogs had higher incidence of hip dysplasia (57. Kasstrom (1975) and Maki et al. 1989) 5. (2004). . (1985) and Riser (1975).1 Age Dogs in the age group of less than one year of age had higher incidence of hip dysplasia (46.04 per cent) and medium sized dogs (8.. The increase in incidence in male dogs may probably be due to the smaller number of population studied or preference of the pet owners for male dogs higher in the studied population. These findings concurred with. highest incidence of canine hip dysplasia was seen in large breeds of dogs (78. Alexandar (1992). Priester and Mulvihill (1972) recorded equal distribution of incidence of hip dysplasia in male and females.69 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION 5.3 Size of the animal Among the 322 dogs studied. (Corley and Keller. overloading of articular areas and tearing or stretching of round ligament resulting in dysplasia. 5.67 per cent) and dogs in the age group of more than six years of age (22.69 per cent). This might be due to rapid growth and early weight gain in large breed dogs (Genevois et al. Lust et al. followed by small sized dogs (13.1. Lust and Summers (1981).54 per cent). The increase in incidence in young animals less than one year might be due to early rapid growth.1 INCIDENCE 5. 2008) resulting insufficient relative strength for the hip muscles to prevent subluxation of the hip joint during weight bearing.27 per cent) when compared to dogs in the age group between one to six years of age (31.45 per cent) than female dogs (42.1.04 per cent).26 per cent).2 Sex In this study.1.

The improvement in lameness score in animals in both the groups may be attributed to increased pelvic muscle mass (Smith. (2008) reported similar findings in their study of hip dysplasia. 2007 and Vezzoni et al. stay seated for long time in abduction-flexion position. to support the forced hip congruence would have also helped in improvement in pain score. Also management advice given during the skeletal maturity period such as restricted exercise and feeding (Kealy et al. 1993 and Kealy et al.. 1992).1 Pain In Group I. Similar observations were recorded by Riser et al.. confining puppies in a cage. early rapid weight gain (Barr et al. The increase in the incidence of dysplasia in Labrador retrievers might be due to genetic predisposition (Chase et al. (2007) and Vezzoni et al. 5... heavy rounded stocky conformation (Fries and Remedios. 1987). 1995) with less developed muscle and more than 10 per cent of subcutaneous fat (Hazewinkel. 1992. 1998). 2000). decrease in hip laxity (Corley. 1987) during the skeletal maturity period would have likely helped in alleviating the pain associated with HD (Farrell et al.2. Manley et al. 1989) . highest incidence of canine hip dysplasia was seen in Labrador retrievers (44. 1976 and Bennett. Kealy et al.4 Breed Of the 322 dogs studied.09 per cent) than German shepherd dogs (16.70 5. (1985) and Scartazzini (1970). This might be due to neutraceuticals administered (Belfield.14 per cent)... 1992) and decreased pain during the developmental stage (Fry and Clark.2 Lameness Four animals in group I and one in group II showed improvement in lameness score. two animals showed improvement in pain score..1. three animals showed improvement in pain score and in Group II.2 CLINICAL SYMPTOMS 5. 5. and loose skin. 1986). 2004 and Shepherd. anatomically shallow acetabulum.2. 2008). Less severe degree of dysplasia in the animals presented in group I .

(1993). 5.71 might be the contributing factor for the increased improvement in the lameness score in this group during the skeletal maturity period. Greg Keller (2006) and Newton (1985). (1997)..3 PHYSICAL PALPATION BY ORTOLANI MANOEUVER Persistence of positive Ortolani sign in group I and group II animals both the period of assessment and an improvement or absence of Ortolani sign in one animal in group I might be due to decrease in joint laxity.5. The findings of this study concurred with that of Cardinet et al. 1999) 5. This probably might be due to slow onset of hip dysplasia which could not have produced any effect on reticulo-endothelial system and biochemical values. Norberg angle values in all hips except two showed a decrease. In group II there was non significant decrease in the mean Norberg angle values found between pre and post skeletal maturity period.1 Norberg angle Highly significant increase in mean Norberg angle values were noticed between pre and post skeletal maturity in group I. In group II. This finding concurred with Adams et al. irrespective of the severity showed improvement in Norberg angle values. Lust et al. 5. These findings are in concurrence with the study of Hansen (1989). All hips in group I except two.5 QUANTITATIVE RADIOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS 5.4 HAEMATOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS No significant difference was observed in haematological and biochemical parameters among Group I and Group II animals between pre and post skeletal maturity period. 1968) and Distraction index values of respective animals in both groups. (Puerto et al. (1973) and Lust et al. (2000) who noticed a significant relation between Ortolani maneuver results and radiographic distraction index. Ortolani sign showed correlation with Norberg angle (Bardens and Hardwick. .

.5. 1997) which allows the femoral head move away from the articular surface of the acetabulum and responsible for development of degenerative joint disease in dogs. 1991) of moderately deep acetabulum in German shepherd breeds of dogs (Scartazzini. 2008) The decrease in Norberg angle values in group II might be due to anatomically shallow acetabulum in Labrador retriever breeds of dogs (Scartazzini. 1970). the genetically shallow acetabulum (Scartazzini.. 1970).. early rapid weight gain which led to abnormal weight bearing forces across the joint (Kasstrom. But in Group II there was no significant increase in DI values were seen in post skeletal maturity period. Ginja et al. 2008a.. 2006 and Janutta et al. Appreciable decrease of DI was noticed on all animals in this group. 2008c) In group I improvement in DI values during post skeletal maturity period might be due to increased ossification (Hazewinkel et al. increased ossification centers during the developmental stage (Cardinet et al. in Labrador retriever breeds of dogs in Group II even though skeletal muscle mass development and muscular tone contributed for increase in DI (Lust et al. 1970).... 2006) and fibrosis and thickening of the joint capsule of the coxofemoral joint. (Ginja et al. 1992). (Janutta and Distl. 2008b and Ginja et al.72 The improvement in Norberg angle values in group I might be due to anatomically developed moderately deep acetabulum in German shepherd breeds of dogs (Scartazzini.2 Distraction Index The mean DI value of German shepherd breeds of dogs in group I had highly significant decrease noticed from pre skeletal maturity period to post skeletal maturity period. 5. Distraction index is the indicative of passive joint laxity (Gibbs. Whereas. increased pelvic muscle mass (Greg Keller.. 1970) and unique early rapid weight . heavy rounded stocky conformation with less developed muscle and more than 10 per cent subcutaneous fat (Lust et al. 1975) and loose skin. 1993). 1997).

1987) and have no effect on the hip laxity which is the definitive reason for development of hip dysplasia in dogs.. 2007) for the breed characteristic would have caused negative effect resulted in non significant raise in DI values. (2009). This finding concurred with Meomartino et al. This might be due to rapid weight gain due to increased fat percentage and shallow acetabulum during skeletal maturity period would have allowed dorsolateral movement of the femoral head during weight bearing.. This finding concurred with Smith et al.5.5. 5..73 gain (Silvestre et al. 1995) and also gradual deepening of acetabulum during the development in German shepherd breeds (Mackenzie et al. which became normal that is more than 60 percentage. This might be due to progressive strength of supporting soft tissue structures namely joint capsule and muscle mass (Popovitch et al. Since CEA and ASA indicative of damage to the dorsal acetabular rim (Morgan. 1999) increased in all animals in group I from pre skeletal maturity period to post skeletal maturity period. . 1985) of dogs. More increase in acetabular coverage in dogs with upper limit of moderate values. (1990).4 Central edge angle and Acetabular slope angle All dogs in group I and II except dog no 1 and 6 in group II showed increase in CEA and ASA values during skeletal maturity period.. (2002) and Risler et al. This finding concurred with Hazewinkel (1994). In group II the animals with DLSI values below 30 percentage in pre skeletal maturity period reduced further during the skeletal maturity period. 5. The animals in both the group which were severely dysplastic retained the CEA and ASA values during skeletal maturity period.3 Dorsolateral Subluxation Score DLSI value that is percentage of acetabular coverage in weight bearing position (Farese et al.

Even though subluxation of femoral head depends on dorsally applied pressure. The negative correlation between NA and SI (r 0. 1961) decreased in all animals in group I (German shepherd dogs) during skeletal maturity period. This finding concurred with Fluckiger et al. surface area of the dorsal acetabulum plays a major role in opposing the manual pressure.5 Subluxation index SI that is displacement of femoral head from the acetabulum during dorsally directed manual force (Olsson. (1999). . The positive correlation between NA and DLSI (r 0. An increase in Norberg angle correspondingly shows an increase in DLSI percentage denoting good hip and decreasing Norberg angle and decreasing DLSI denoting susceptibility to dysplastic hip. But in Labrador retriever breeds of dogs the laxity was more in all animal except one hip in one animal. An increase in Norberg angle correspondingly shows a decrease in SI percentage denoting good hip and decreasing Norberg angle and increasing SI denoting susceptibility to dysplastic hip.74 5. The difference in strength in those structures in group I and group II animals might be the reason for the difference in the values. recoiling effect of supporting structure of the hip joint especially elasticity of the joint capsule.5.6 CORRELATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT QUANTITATIVE RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES The negative correlation between NA and DI (r 0.8) suggests that Norberg angle and DI has a strong relation.8) suggests that as Norberg angle and DLSI has a strong relation. 5. An increase in Norberg angle correspondingly shows a decrease in DI percentage denoting good hip and decreasing Norberg angle and increasing DI denoting susceptibility to dysplastic hip. strength of the muscle mass.8) suggests that as Norberg angle and SI has a strong relation.

8) suggests that as DI and SI has a strong relation. An increase in DI correspondingly shows an increase in SI percentage denoting dysplastic hip and decreasing DI and decreasing SI denoting good hip.. DI highly correlates with SI in both groups. 2009) More relative correlation was seen between NA to DLSI and DI to SI. An increase in DI correspondingly shows a decrease in DLSI percentage denoting dysplastic hip and decreasing DI and increasing DLSI denoting good hip. The negative correlation between DLSI and SI (r 0. (Ginja et al..8) suggests that as DI and DLSI has a strong relation. Values which were normal and near normal. The positive correlation between DI and SI (r 0. 1993). An increase in DLSI correspondingly shows a decrease in SI percentage denoting good hip and decreasing DLSI and increasing SI denoting dysplastic hip. In DI laterally directed force over the femoral head luxates it from the acetabular cavity if the supporting soft tissue structures were week. This indicates stronger supporting structures around the hip joint in normal anatomical alignment overcome the external pressure and maintains the femoral head in congruence with the acetabulum. ASA and CEA reveal the dorsal acetabular coverage surface area over the femoral head when there were no externally applied forces. highly correlates with each others in all quantitative radiographic assessment methods. .75 The negative correlation between DI and DLSI (r 0. Dorsally directed force towards the acetabulum in DLSI and SI luxate the femoral head. in reduced contact surface area of the acetabulum and weekend supporting soft tissue structures around the hip joint. Displacement or subluxation of femoral head away from acetabular cavity was measured through different quantitative radiographic assessment techniques after application of external forces (Heyman et al.8) suggests that as DLSI and SI has a strong relation. In Norberg angle measurement position recoiling effect of winding of joint capsule pushes the femoral head and maintains it in congruence with acetabulum.

4 became dysplastic.4 at the age of 4 months developed normal hips and 57 percentage of dog with DI value greater than 0.3 and DLSI value of 64. (Smith et al.76 Defects either hereditary or acquired in any one of the structures like shallow acetabulum..5 were proved to be unsusceptible to OA. Because it produces least passive laxity. (Johnson et al. He also noticed high correlation between DI and SI.. . weekend joint capsule.7 and DLSI value of 39. 1995) Fluckiger (1995) stated that most of the stress study reveals that positive correlation between the coxofemoral joint laxity and coxarthrosis. poor muscular development and rapid weight gain before the skeletal maturity might fail to resist the external forces. DI value of 0.00±2. Farese et al. 1998. 2007) Culp et al. These were the reasons most probably occurred in Labrador retriever breeds of dogs where the quantitative hip assessment values were not effectively correlated with each other as seen with German shepherd breeds of dogs. The author also noted 87 percentage of Labrador retriever with the DI value of less than 0. 2004 and Szabo et al. since both the techniques dislocate the hip when using differently directed external forces. (1998) found high correlation between DLSI and DI in predicting OA susceptibility in dogs..6 had high probability of developing OA.00±1. DI value of 0. (2006) noticed linear correlation between NA and DI in all breeds of dogs and also found a high correlation in animals with normal values of NA and DI. There were no significant correlation between CEA and ASA with other methods since defects in dorsal acetabular coverage happened during later stage of the disease progress like enthesophyte formation and bony remodeling which leads to the OA and DJD. decreased dorsal surface area of the acetabulum cover affects the DLSI and SI.. Failure in different structures deviate the normal value of quantitative assessment procedure like week joint capsule and reduced muscle mass affects the NA and DI. Powers et al.

77 Summary .

physical palpation by Ortolani manouver and haematobiochemical parameters were studied and found that in group I and group II dogs there was an improvement in pain score during skeletal maturity period whereas Lameness score was improved only in group I dogs. More relative correlation was seen between NA to DLSI and DI to SI. Standard Ventro dorsal view(SVDV).77 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY Dogs presented with clinical signs of hip dysplasia to the Small Animal Orthopedic unit of Madras Veterinary College Teaching Hospital were selected for the study. The clinical signs. weekend joint capsule. Weight bearing view. Distraction view(DV). six different quantitative measurements of hips were taken to grade the hips for dysplasia namely Norberg angle. poor muscular development and rapid weight gain before the skeletal maturity might fail to resist the external forces and deviate . Defects either hereditary or acquired in any one of the structures like shallow acetabulum. Clinically hip dysplastic German shepherd and Labrador retriever breeds of dogs were grouped into two groups of six numbers in each groups and subjected to hip assessment before and after skeletal maturity of long bones. Dorsal acetabular rim view and 60 degree stress view. From these positioning methods. Under general anesthesia radiography was performed in different positioning methods namely.. Distraction index. DI highly correlates with SI in both groups. Central edge angle and subluxation index. DI and SI. No significant difference observed in Hematological and Biochemical Parameters among Group I and Group II animals between pre and post skeletal maturity period. Values which were normal and near normal highly correlates with each others in all quantitative radiographic assessment methods. Acetabular slope angle. Dorsolateral subluxation index. Correlation between the Quantitative radiographic measurements were showed that high correlation between NA and DLSI.

there was no significant correlation seen between these values in both groups. Since both CEA and ASA represent dorsal acetabular coverage. .78 the normal value of quantitative assessment procedures. Week joint capsule and reduced muscle mass affects the NA and DI. decreased dorsal surface area of the acetabulum cover affects the DLSI and SI. As there was no defects in dorsal acetabular coverage noticed which usually happened during later stage of the disease progress due to enthesophyte formation and bony remodeling which leads to the OA and DJD. No significant correlation was noticed between CEA and ASA with other quantitative assessment methods. Those were the reasons most probably occurred in Labrador retriever breeds of dogs where the quantitative hip assessment values were not effectively correlated with each other as seen with German shepherd breeds of dogs.

79 Bibliography .

Joint diseases of dogs and cats.. Med. Coxofemoral joint laxity and the Ortolani sign. Small Anim. Fialkowski and E. 28: 243–252. Association between pelvic muscle mass and canine hip dysplasia. Butler. 1995. J. Vet. 1968.C.May. Dueland. and H. 63: 238–245. and H. J. Anim. . Vet. Small Anim. Small Anim. Bennett.. Am.. J. D. Clin. Gibbs. 1987. 1985. Med. Daniels. Clin. G.. Wallace. Vet. USA. Kass and L. Hardwick.W. A. New observations on the diagnosis and cause of hip dysplasia. R.T. Surg. D. Vet. 21: 671–676.... Small Anim. Small Anim.M. pp 2053-2058. Med.P. W. Am. North. Am. Bardens. In: Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine – Volume 2 (4th edn)..A. R. J. W. J.. Assoc. Cardinet. Assoc. and C. Chalman. H.. W B Saunders. Clin. 22: 503-511. Vet. 1976. Radio. 74: 1399-1401. 2000. 41: 484–490. Comparison of two palpation..R.V. The pathogenesis of canine hip dysplasia.S.. Pract. 1997. Denny and C. Clinical hip dysplasia in growing dogs: the long-term results of conservative management. 2: 152-157.O. Med.H.H. J. Barr. Chronic subclinical scurvey and canine hip dysplasia. 1987. four radiographic and three ultrasound methods for early detection of mild to moderate canine hip dysplasia... J.. Hosp. Vet. 210:14661473.R.79 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams.G. PA. Ultra. P. 1992. Nordheim. Belfield. Alexander.W. Pract. Hip dysplasia and ascorbate therapy: fact or fancy? Semin.. Bennett.

... Clarke. D. E. Clements. Vet. 160: 506–511.J. T. D. Williams and N. Bilaterally asymmetric effects of quantitative trait loci (QTLs): QTLs that affect laxity in the right versus left coxofemoral (hip) joints of the dog.L.A. W. E. F.F.J. 1992. Saunders Company. J. Keller. Smith. S. 35: 453-459. Surg. A. A. Res.G..T. Lark.P. M. pp 197-204. W.L.80 Chase. 1986. 60: 1571–1576. Todhunter. .A. 2004. Williams. Kapatkin. Farese. P. Ostrander and K. Gregor. D. 1998. Farrell. J. G. Vet.L. Lawler..Y.P. Evaluation of the Norberg Angle Threshold: Comparison of Norberg angle and distraction index as measures of coxofemoral Degenerative joint disease susceptibility in seven breeds of dogs. Adler.N. Arnott. 2006.N. Small Anim. Hip Dysplasia. Vet Surg.. M. Dykes.J.A.. Columbia.. Dykes and R. Retrospective evaluation of the long-term outcome of non-surgical management of 74 dogs with clinical hip dysplasia. Mellor.B. Lust. Culp. Gene... A. J.. Dorsolateral subluxation of hip joints in dogs measured in a weight-bearing position with radiography and computed tomography.. Med. 27: 393– 405. T. In: Veterinary Clinical pathology. Am. Farese. 124A: 239–247. 2007. Missouri: Orthopedic Foundation of Animals. Mckelvie and G. 1999.R. Pract. Clin. J. G. 22: 579–593. Vet. North Am. In: A Guide for Dog Breeders and Owners.P. R. Bennett and S. 4th Edn.S. pp 31-32 Corley.J.J. Coles. Rec. Role of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals in the control of canine hip dysplasia. J.H. N. 2nd ed. Corley. E. E.P. Comparison of measurements of dorsolateral subluxation of the femoral head and maximal passive laxity for evaluation of the coxofemoral joint in dogs. Gemmill.. Philadelphia. K. D. Lust.. Todhunter. and G. 1989. Powers.K. Carmichael. Vet.G. Am.

Ginja. F. Cachon.. 2008c. M. The BVA/KC scoring scheme for control of hip dysplasia.. 141: 275–284. 36.A..M. 28: 1–9. 56: 303–312.J. Traum. Vet. 1999. Maitre and D. Comp. M.A.P. Silvestre. 2008. and D.. Orden. Viguier. Melo-Pinto. Remy. San Roman. Surg. Genevois. G. P. J.. A..A. Melo-Pinto. Binder. 2008a. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica. 494–502.M.M. Early hip laxity examination in predicting moderate and severe hip dysplasia in Estrela mountain dog. Pract. T. Gonzalo-Orden. Gibbs. M.. Clin. Vet. Colaço. Collard. 49: 641–646. J. M. J.M.A. Ferreira. Orden.. heritability and breeding values. F.81 Flückiger. J.M. among 31 breeds of dogs in France. Remedios. Small Anim. Passive hip laxity in Estrela mountain dog – distraction index.. A... Rec. C. Ginja. Canine hip dysplasia: clinical signs and physical diagnosis. 1995. 22: 551– 558. The pathogenesis and diagnosis of canine hip dysplasia: a review. Objectifying a subjective process. Hip Dysplasia in Estrela mountain dogs – prevalence and genetic trends 1991–2005..P. D. J. Fau. J. Llorens-Pena and J.M. Orthop.Pinto. T. Fries. C. M.. Gonzalo-Orden. 21: 21–24. P. Anim. J.. Vet. 2008b.L. interpretation of criteria. Prevalence of hip dysplasia according to official radiographic screening. Ginja.D.A. Friedrich and H. M. Melo. J. Euro. Carozzo. J. Ferreira. Orden. M. 1995.D. Fry. J. E. Vet.M. Bulas-Cruz. M. Silvestre. 1997. A.D. 182: 275–282. The standardised analysis of radiographs for hip dysplasia in dogs. M. Flückiger. P. 1992. P. Vet. Small Anim. 5: 39–44.. Ferreira. Gonzalo-Orden. and A.J. Pract.. Comp. Llorens-Pena and A. Llorens-Pena and A.P. A radiographic stress technique for evaluation of coxofemoral joint laxity in dogs. M. C. Can.J.M. Vet. M.P.M. . North Am.A. Clark. Colaço.M.R. Pract.

Smith and M. 50: 135–143. Hansen. J.. A.W. 1989. J. England: Butler and Tanner. W. Hazewinkel. J. H.A. Nutr. computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging methods for early prediction of canine hip dysplasia.Vet. Ferreira. A. 121: 99-106.M. Biomechanical study of the effect of coxofemoral positioning on passive hip joint laxity in dogs. Simpson. Frome.Assoc. J. pp 293 – 302. R. eds.D. E. Jesus. Gonzalo-Orden. Columbia. Melo-Pinto.H. Heyman. radiographic. Evaluation of methods for assessment of pain associated with chronic osteoarthritis in dogs.M. S. A. Rivers. I.Tulamo and M.E.P.K. The Waltham Book of Clinical Nutrition of the Dog and Cat. G.Sarto. Calcium metabolism in Great Dane dogs fed diets with various calcium and phosphorus levels.Nifong Blvd. Hazewinkel.S. 1989.Huttunen.J.Med. 1994.Liman.82 Ginja. Markkola. 2006.. J. 222:1552-1558.J. A. Res.W. 2009. Comparison of clinical. Ultra. 1993. Orden. 2300 E. F. Van Den Brom.A.... Willis and K.P. Vet.. In: The use of health databases and selective breeding. In: J. Greg Keller.T. E. pp 395-423. 30: 111-112. P. In: I. 1991.K. . M.A. 2003. Radio...M. Voorhout and A. Vet. Scand. Llorens-Pena and J.. Cofone. San Roman. A. Hazewinkel.. pp 31-32. M. Burger.. eds. P. Nutrition of the Dog and Cat. Skeletal diseases.Am. Inc. 5th Edition Orthopedic Foundation for Animals. Am. Klooster. Plasma amino acids in dogs with osteochondrosis or hip dysplasia. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Pr. S.. J.Raekallio. H. Acta. Bulas-Cruz. Calcium metabolism and skeletal development in dogs. Hielm-Bjorkman. G.. Leppaluoto. 54: 210-215.A. Wees. Vet. Kuusela.A. M. H.

Acta Radiol.83 Janutta. J.A. Vet. H.. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift. Olsson. V. Kealy. Effects of dietary electrolyte balance on subluxation of the femoral head in growing dogs.. Assoc. Lust. 34: 87-91. 1998. 34: 260–264.K. Distl.D. 1981. Am. J. Vet.. G.. Am. Lawler and K. 2008. Res.D. Inheritance of canine hip dysplasia: review of estimation methods and of heritability estimates and prospects on further developments. D. Res.W. Hosp. A.N. Biery. Mantz. R. J. 42: 1849-1855. Lust and G. Summers..M.. Lust. Am. 1973. G. D. Am. R. 2006. Biery.E.. Distl. G. Kealy.L. J.K.. J. J. Evaluation of the effect of limited food consumption on radiographic evidence of osteoarthrosis in dogs..D. Geary and B. Kealy. R. S. Helms. Nutrition. Am. Johnson. Vet. 1993.W. D. Smith and S. Genetic and phenotypic trends in canine hip dysplasia in the German population of German shepherd dogs. G. D. Smith. Berliner und Munchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift.F. Ballam. . and O. J..E. Lust. Early asymptomatic stage of degenerative joint disease in canine hip joints. and B. Assoc. 2000. Lawler. Hungerford. R. Triple pelvic osteotomy: effect on limb function and progression of degenerative joint disease. Vet. 344: 135-179. G. L. Vet.F. Development of hip dysplasia in dogs. Res. Pijanowski and L. 1992.F. Sheffy. H. 217: 1678-1680. 113: 6–12. G. Effects of limited food consumption on the incidence of hip dysplasia in growing dogs..C. Weight Gain. Assoc. D.J. 1975. Hamann and O. S. Med. Med.. 54: 555-562... Lawler.L. Janutta.. Smith..L. 121: 102–109.N. V. Monti. Monti. Am.L. Suppl. 201: 857–863. and Development of Hip Dysplasia: An Experimental Investigation in Growing Dogs with Special Reference to the Effect of Feeding Intensity. Kasstrom. J. Anim.

N. Lust. Janss. Anim.E.. P. Carter and M. Assoc.J.A. G.. Pijanowski. Peterson.84 Lust. Dueland and K. Williams. Brunetti. Rubin. 1985. Morphometric assessment of the canine hip joint using the dorsal acetabular rim view and the central edge angle. Vet. Assoc. Vet.A. Danielson. Mäki. J. Heritability estimate for temperament scores in German shepherd dogs and its genetic correlation with hip dysplasia. 2007. Mackenzie. Mäki. J.A.. 78: 1141– 1148. J. G... Am. Summers.. 187: 638-640. Burton-Wurster. J. Williams. 1993.E. 230: 206– 210. K. Manley.F. J. Med. Sci. Res. K. 2002.J.A. 53: 1836–1843. M. J. Vet. Am.D.. Leighton.. Behav. Potena and A. G. Liinamo and M. V. G. K.. 2004. Heredity. 1992. 92:402–408. Fatone.. G.A. K. A. 2001.M. 1985.. Canine hip dysplasia: concepts and diagnosis. Groen. W. R. A. Am. Med. Beck and G. G.. Linn. Smith. Lust. Estimates of genetic parameters for hip and elbow dysplasia in Finnish Rottweilers. Beck. Genet. 219: 209–214. Vet. Ojala.. Am.T. L. Adams. Moore. Vet. Oltenacu and W. K. Pract. A. Meomartino.K. Rendano and B.. Effects of intramuscular administration of glycosaminoglycan polysulfates on signs of incipient hip dysplasia in growing pups. Causes of death or reasons for euthanasia in military working dogs: 927 cases (1993–1996).T.L. 2000. Burkman. A.. 54: 1990–1999.J. L. Assoc.N. .A.. Ojala.A. E.. Joint laxity and its association with hip dysplasia in Labrador retrievers. Res. K. Am. Small Anim. Burton-Wurster. An indication of major genes affecting hip and elbow dysplasia in four Finnish dog populations.C. S. A. 43: 2-6. 15: 475-482..R. Med. Rubin and G. A. Liinamo and M.E. Longterm outcome of juvenile pubic symphysiodesis and triple pelvic osteotomy in dogs with hip dysplasia. N. J. G.

. J. J. 1995. Vet. Lippincott Company. Med. 2004.. (Eds. Vet. Small Anim.T.. and development of normal and dysplastic hip joint.E. Canine hip dysplasia evaluation.E. and hip score in dogs. 214: 497–501.A. size and breed and comparative aspects. Am. Rendano. In: Newton.K. Am. 206: 648. C.D. V. USA. Pract. 160: 735739. D.. Use of caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte as an early marker for future development of osteoarthritis associated with hip dysplasia in dogs. 1985. M. 12: 244–334.A. Gregor. J. Vet. Lawler. Med. Gregor. relative risk by sex. Olsson. Normal joint range of motion in the dog and cat: Appendix B.. 1975. T.H. Assoc.Y... Priester. Nunamaker. Roentgen examination of the hip joints of German shepherd dogs. Pathology.P. Radiol.85 Morgan. Conzemius. Vet. W.K. Powers. D. M. C. and D. Popovitch.G. Vet.A. Biery and D.N. Ryan. 3: 117-120. J. Assoc. 1987. Mulvihill... McKelvie. 26:170-186. Smith and T.D. pp 1101–1106. and G.T. G. 1972. 1999. . Assoc. S.P. LaFond. The dog as a model for the study of hip dysplasia: growth..P. C.. 1985. Vet. Assoc. A positioning and labeling guide for radiographs to be submitted to the orthopaedic Foundation for Animals. Philadelphia. Canine hip dysplasia.J. Comparison of susceptibility for hip dysplasia between Rottweilers and German shepherd dogs.. Adv. W. Puerto. Med. Cabell and P. form. 225: 233-237. Am. Riser.B.650.M. and J.. 1961. L. J. E. Norberg angle. Textbook of Small Animal Orthopaedics. Newton. Relationship between results of the Ortolani method of hip joint palpation and distraction index. Am. Smith. 28: 2-5. J. Radiol. Med... G.W.). Vet.. Canine hip dysplasia: significance of early bony spurring.

Slocum.. Radiol. Anim. Biery and T. Shepherd. J. Vet. Silvestre.H. M. A.H. Keuler and W. Gregor. 319:183-195. Acta.P.D. J. Vet.. J. 206: 642–647. 26: 289-296. In: C. Vet.. 1990. Quat.A. Pract.M. Nunamaker.J. and T. 2007. Canine hip dysplasia: Aetiology. C.K. J. Hosp. Popovitch. D. Klauer. Risler. D. Vet. Am.. 1985. Anim. A radiologic study of normal and dysplastic hip joints in six breeds of large dogs.M. Smith. Am. Sci. 1986. Radio. 1995. G. N. J. Comparison of estimates of hip dysplasia genetic parameters in Estrela mountain dog using linear and threshold models.. A. R.D.P. Textbook of Small Animal Orthopedics. 1990. Ferreira and J.. Smith. New concepts of coxofemoral joint stability and the development of a clinical stress-radiographic method for in the dog. T. Adams.. and genetic control. Am. pathogenesis and eradication. Philadelphia: J. metaphyseal sclerosis and caudolateral curvilinear and circumferential femoral head osteophytes in early detection of canine hip dysplasia. Ginja. eds..M. pp 953-980.K..M. Canine hip dysplasia: pathogenesis. Aust.S.N.B. G. Med.. Lippincott. 16: 71-78...S. Assoc. Assoc. Newton.86 Riser. Rhodes and C. Hip dysplasia. . 50(2): 157-166. 85: 1880–1884.M. W. Shofer. 1998. A. diagnosis.. Devine. Colaco. Vet.K. G. Smith.. Med. Ultra. 2009. B. Assoc. W. Evaluation of risk factors for degenerative joint disease associated with hip dysplasia in dogs. Gregor and F. Dorsal acetabular rim radiographic view for evaluation of the canine hip. 20: 22–24. Scartazzini. 196: 59– quantitating hip joint laxity 70. J. 1970.. Puppy line. Newton.

G. Vezzoni. Corbari.. . Zhang. G. N. 1993. R. N. Traum.F. Surg. Biery and D. Dravelli. S. R.. using sheep as a model.. C. Volkman.. G. Nassuato and V. Pract. 1987. Todhunter.M. S. Euro. Welsh. Vernier-Singer. G. Quantitative trait loci for hip dysplasia in a cross-breed canine pedigree. Comp. A. 2: 92-106. 2007. Vet.M. M. Comp. Assoc. R. De Lorenzi. Orthop.J. Quaas.Nolan. 231: 889-892. Canine hip dysplasia: past and present. A. M. Med.. 2008. Am. E. J. Gilbert. Z. A. 2005. The early diagnosis of canine hip dysplasia. L. Corey.87 Szabo. Williams.. 21: 267–279. Cirla.L. C.. D. M. Wallace. A. G.. Tranquillo. Harjes. 2005. R. 54: 976-983. De Lorenzi.O. 15: 173–184. Dykes.I. E. Evaluation of a circumferential femoral head osteophyte as an early indicator of osteoarthritis characteristic of canine hip dysplasia in dogs.P. Dravelli.L. Vet.J. Vet.. Anim. Vezzoni. Acland. D. A. Tranquilo. Corbari. Am. L. Mateescu. Bliss. Burton-Wurster. Small Anim. Lust. Vet.J. Res.. Comparison of conservative management and juvenile pubic symphysiodesis in the early treatment of canine hip dysplasia. Med. Casella and R. 16: 720–730. A. Mammalian Genome.Gettinby and A.N. Comparison of a visual analogue scale and a numerical rating scale for assessment of lameness.D.. J. A. J. Lawler. Vezzoni. Cirla and V.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful