Morphometric assessment of the canine hip joint using the acetabular angle of retrotorsion

Abstract

Morphometric assessment of the canine hip joint using acetabular angle of retrotorsion was used in this study. The aim of our study was to compare the acetabular angle of retrotorsion (AAR) with values of the Norberg angle (NA) and the hip score (HS) in the Leonberger dog breed and to determine the cut-off point of AAR that distinguish between normal and dysplastic hip status on the basis of Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) hip evaluation. Retrospective analysis of NA and AAR was measured from standard ventrodorsal pelvic radiographs with extended femurs in 387 Leonberger dogs (141 males and 246 females) from 18 to 63 months of age, which were then divided into five age-groups. Through analysis of these radiographs, it was determined that the cut-off point for NA was 105°, AAR was 15°, and the acetabular angle of retrotorsion was positively correlated with Norberg angle and negatively correlated with hip score. The results of our study indicate that the acetabular angle of retrotorsion may represent a reliable morphometric assessment tool in evaluating acetabular cup conformation, and values of AAR may help to assess the FCI grade of canine hip dysplasia.

Comparing Norberg angle, linear femoral overlap and surface femoral overlap in radiographic assessment of the canine hip joint

“…The correlations were individually plotted and allocated to one of four groups (Fig 2), with normal versus abnormal as the separation line for each measuring method (NA, LFO or SFO). The division between normal and abnormal was set at >105° for NA and >50% for FO (Culp et al 2006, Doskarova et al 2010, Skurkova et al 2010, Smith et al 2012. Percentages were calculated for each quadrant.…”

Gender-Related Differences in Pelvic Morphometrics of the Retriever Dog Breed

“…Many studies have been conducted on dog bone morphology, including those related to clinical purposes, such as surgery or imaging (Doskarova et al, 2010;Volta et al, 2013), and those involved in the characteristic study of individual dog breeds (Kieser and Groeneveld, 1992b;Onar, 1999;Martins et al, 2012) and species (Kieser and Groeneveld, 1992a;Schoenebeck and Ostrander, 2013) or gender comparisons (Onodera et al, 1987;Kieser and Groeneveld, 1992a;Pukprayoon et al, 2013). However, gender identification in the dog via bone morphology is quite limited.…”

A radiographic and anatomic study of caudolateral curvilinear osteophytes on the canine femoral neck

“…Current screening systems for CHD rely on radiographic interpretation by quantification of certain anatomic landmarks of the hip joint serving as assessment criteria. These significantly affect final assessment score and, therefore, their efficacy in reducing or eradicating CHD is limited (Fluckiger et al 1995;Willis 1997;Doskarova et al 2010). Despite intensive screening for more than four decades, the prevalence of CHD remains high in some breeds of dogs (Paster et al 2005;Coopman et al 2008;Doskarova et al 2010;Martins et al 2012).…”

“…The prevalence of CHD is as high as 73% in some breeds of dogs (Paster et al 2005;Genevois et al 2007;Genevois et al 2008;Doskarova et al 2010;Martins et al 2012). Radiographic and clinical evidence of coxofemoral osteoarthritis is a common sequela of CHD, and is mostly apparent in older dogs (Whittington et al 1961;Ackerman 1982;Morgan 1987;Owens and Biery 1999;Mayhew et al 2002).…”

“…These significantly affect final assessment score and, therefore, their efficacy in reducing or eradicating CHD is limited (Fluckiger et al 1995;Willis 1997;Doskarova et al 2010). Despite intensive screening for more than four decades, the prevalence of CHD remains high in some breeds of dogs (Paster et al 2005;Coopman et al 2008;Doskarova et al 2010;Martins et al 2012). Environmental factors such as weight, exercise regimen, sex, and breed have been reported to affect hip joint growth and subsequent development of CHD (Whittington et al 1961;Ackerman 1982;Mayhew et al 2002;Paster et al 2005;Genevois et al 2007;Genevois et al 2008;Doskarova et al 2010).…”