How important is the Norberg Angle to the overall hip score. E.g. Would one expect a bitch with a Norberg Angle score of 0:1, to have an overall high score? Would the age of the bitch and the fact that she was in season when the x-ray was taken to make any difference?

The Olson Norberg angle is, in simple language, the amount that the pelvis wraps around the femoral head. A score of 0 means that it wraps 15 degrees or more over the vertical. 1 mark lost indicates that it wraps between 10 and 14 degrees over the vertical. All in all, not really a problem on it's own. 2 and the amount it wraps over is reduced to 5 to 9 degrees, starting to get a bit close. 3 and it is down to 0 to 4 over. At 4 we are going into the negative, -1 to -5 degrees. 5 and it's -6 to -10. And at the worst, 6, it is over -11 degrees.

Really you should not take one figure in isolation but rather look at the whole picture. Truthfully, one mark lost in any feature is quite a good result. and not something to worry over much about.

As to a dog loosing a mark on the norberg angle having a high or low overall score, there is no reason why it should or for that matter should not. Look at the score as a whole. For example, a hip loosing 9 marks, one  mark lost for each of the nine features would, to me anyway, be preferable to a hip loosing only 6 marks, all lost on one feature only! In the former case there is no glaring faults, just a number of minor ones but in the case of the latter there is one major fault which could cause big trouble later in life.

X-raying early or x-raying very close to a season COULD make a difference but not a major one. I personally would prefer my dogs to be tested at around 18 months and preferably around halfway between seasons but if I could not get the optimum I would not be loosing any sleep.

Hope this helps Guest.

Regards, John

That's really helpful, John (I didn't ask the original question!). Now please can you explain what the Acetabular edge is??

Your now in the realm of the funny bits Anwen. The Norberg angle is easy, it is a straight measurement, no grey areas. The rest of it is a little more subjective. The Acetabular edge is, very simply, the pelvic socket. This is broken down into smaller areas in order to make various areas scorable  (I know there is no such word but you get the drift of what I'm saying!)

Dorsal Acetabular Edge is the section of pelvic socket which, with the dog standing normally fit's over the Femoral head. It shows on the x-rays as a faint line behind the femoral head

Cranial Effective Acetabular rim is the bit which extends to the forward outer edge of the pelvic socket.

Cranial Acetabular edge is the bit, looked at the dog from the side, which is behind the femoral head

Caudal Acetabular Edge, again looking at the dog from the side, is the rearmost section of the pelvic socket.

Obviously the femoral head should be spherical and the pelvic socket should fit evenly and closely around this. Sometimes there is a slight flat on the femoral head. Known as the Foveal Defect, it is ignored and the shape assumed to continue in an even curve. Subluxation is the degree of this overall fit.

Femoral head and neck Exostosis is the degree of degeneration of the Femoral head. This and Femoral head Recontouring are difficult to describe but the nearest I can think of is that the degree of degeneration affects the fit of the joint so Femoral head Recountouring is an effect of Exostosis.

A word about the x-rays. Because when assessing the x-rays you are in part looking at bone behind bone, which only shows as a shadow, the plate must have good definition. Weak "thin" plates will not show the shadow. Also a puppy's bones are soft and do not show clear edges on an x-ray. This is the reason for scores not being given for dogs less than a year old in the UK. (two years in the US) and is the reason I prefer to wait until 18 months old. If the dog is not at right angles to the x-ray machine or is in ANY was twisted then the joint will not show true on the plate.

Anything other that a good quality picture with a correctly aligned fully mature dog will not give the best possible score! Remember, you are paying so if you are not happy with the plate tell your vet to do it again!

Regards, John

John, thank you very much for your comprehensive reply. The bitch in question was x-rayed at six years of age, and on the eighth day of her season. The three experienced vets who checked the x-ray prior to submitting it for scoring believed that, in their words, 'there is no dysplasia present, perhaps just a sniff of arthritis'. On the right hip with a Norberg Angle of zero, the total score was 18; on the left hip with a N.A. of 1 the total score was 29. If the N.A. shows the fit between the femoral head and pelvic socket, (in this case pretty good), why the poor score?  

Hi Jean, welcome to the forum.
First off, I'm not a vet, just someone with years worth of little bits of paper filed away for future reference. So am not qualified in any way to talk about veterinary matters.

The Norberg angle is not the fit, it's the amount the pelvis wraps around the femoral head. If it does not wrap around far enough the hip joint could dislocate. Subluxation is the fit with the Acetabular's showing the position of errors.

Even the worst Norberg of your hips is quite good so I can only assume the acetabulars are poor. As to the sniff of arthritis, my guess is that it is the result of wear in the joint which has opened the joint up.

As I said in the second of my posts, there is an optimum age for hip scoring. This is something between one to two years of age. After this time wear in the joint will tend to increase the score. If the score was pretty good to start with the increase would possible only be in the order of two to three points but if there was originally any slack in the joint then the femoral head can move about in the pelvic socket causing rather more wear and Arthritis. The Arthritis can cause bone build up, (calcification) which will also degrade the score still further. Add to this that during a season the pelvis spreads slightly as if getting ready to allow puppies to pass during birth and you can see how your score could have been degraded. I would guess that possible you have a poor grading of "Femoral Head and Neck Exostosis" and of "Femoral Head Recontouring"? This would indicate degrading of the joint due to the effects of Arthritis.

For what it's worth, that's my feelings without the benefit of seeing the plates'

Regards, John  

John, when do you think it would be better to hip score - at 15 months or at 2 years?

My own feelings are that anything in that region is about right. Bone has finished growing and wear has not yet started to take it's toll. Obviously seasons need to be taken into account for a bitch so to get it around half way between seasons you need a little latitude.

Regards, John

Thanks John, I'm thinking of having our bitch hip scored before I work her (for my own peace of mind) and those two ages are taking into account her seasons :)

I've always had a morbid interest in funny bits, John!!
Thanks very much for taking the time to give such a comprehensive reply. Just interested because my breed (BMS 15) nearly always seems to score in the top 4 "bits" & hardly ever in the acetabular "funny bits" and I wondered if this was common to most breeds? And whether that is good/bad or doesn't matter in terms of the dog itself?

Isn't the 'slack' in the joint accounted for in the Subluxation, also in this case fairly low? Are you aware of anyone in the UK who does Penn-Hipp hip examinations? Anyone have any feelings about hip dysplasia screening in general? Is it working when there seems to be little evidence of genetic improvement in the 30 years since the scheme started?

I had my first male BC X rayed at 3 1/2 because some one wanted to use him at stud, he had done agility, WT & sheep trials before this & his score was 3:3=6  He was working everyday & my X ray specializt vet was really happy that he had good hips-I was disappointed but then my GSD's who were all scored under 2 & I was spoilt I suppose. She did tell me I should have had him done at 12 months for a male & midway between seasons for bitches-that was back in 1984

My imported GSD male had perfect hips & was an improver All the puppies scored that he sired were all better than there mothers & there were sevral  0 scores & under 2 as well. I think he had around 100 puppies scored(not from loads of bitches but a couple had very big litters(police bitchs were the dams))& only two or three of his were not scored. He sadly died early from cancer so his true potential was never realized as a force for good in GSD hips, he was from very strong breed/working lines & was an outcross for the more popular sires of the day

Ice Cosmos.
I had Anna scored before she had to start jumping to be on the safe side. I think in your case it is really a matter of what suits you the best. I like about 18 months which falls pretty well half way between your dated.

Anwen.
A BMS of 15 is something like 7 a side which, if only made up of lots of little bits is really nothing. On the other hand, 7, mostly from one feature could be a very poor hip! You must view the individual hip to get a feel for the thing. I take it you mean "Femoral Head and Neck Exostosis" and "Femoral Head Recontouring"? This, as its name implies is problems with the femur "Ball" rather than the Pelvic "Socket". It could be that your breed has a genetic predisposition towards problems in this part of the hip.

Jean.
Yes, slack is shown up in subluxation. Their wording is:- "Evaluation of subluxation is based principally on the degree of congruency between the femoral head and the acetabulum.

There was a discussion on here some time ago about the Penn-Hipp method try doing a search for it, I'm sure its there somewhere. Personally I know nothing about it.

You say there is little evidence of genetic improvement in the 30 years since the scheme started. Unfortunately the way the statistics are worked out each new hip score is added to the total scores from day one. Obviously this means that it takes a lot of improvement for a little gain in the Breed Mean Score. Taking Labradors as an example. In 1993 for example the BMS was 17 whilst by 1/1/2003 the BMS had dropped to 16 and by 1/1/2004 it had dropped still further to 15! The median is still lower standing at 10 Taking Bullmastives, 1993 = 30, 2003 = 28 and 2004 unchanged at 27. Their median is now 22! Quite an improvement! I firmly believe hips would improve still faster if only everyone scored, and everyone behaved sensibly when thinking about breeding but we all know that is a forlorn hope!!

Regards, John

Hi there, thanks for reply. I should say that my interest lies primarily with Goldens. I have bred a very few litters to replace my own 'family', and have bought in three separate lines. I have read a lot and listened to a lot of experienced people. I haven't come to any conclusions but there are 'pointers' in certain directions which I know people much more experienced than I are well aware of but for a variety of reasons don't mention. If the idea of even more tests are mooted small breeders groan, and who can blame them? Being a small breeder is a thankless task and it sometimes mystifies me why anyone bothers! There's a saying in the horse world,  'Fools breed horses for wise men to ride'!!

I didn't say the current hip screening schemes weren't working, Leppanen et al inthe Journal of Small Animal Practice (2000) said it. The Finnish study involved 10,335 GSD's over a 12 year period, where there was no evidence of genetic improvement, even though in Finland they are not allowed to breed from dogs unless they have only mild HD. (Grade C or better). Interestingly there has been an increase in the numbers of offspring graded affected, (C or worse), and a decrease in the number graded excellent (Grade A) when one of the parents were graded as normal (Grade B), or only mildly affected, (Grade C). They concluded, among other things, that even stricter controls on breeding might result in genetic improvement, (using only Grade A dogs), but that since HD is possibly the result of many factors - not just genetic inheritance - that it is questionable to continue with schemes which cost considerable time and money to administer and don't seem to be working.

If one uses a purely scientific model such as our current schemes, then I think one must take it to its natural conclusion and breed ONLY from dogs with 0:0 scores. A low score is still a degree of HD. As far as I remember with the original GSD scheme that was the original intention. I also remember Dr Curtis, (eyes), once saying that dogs are more than just eyes, (or hips), and that we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose many other splendid qualities in our efforts to improve one aspect.

We all know of litters that have been bred from stock with below Breed Mean Averages, (BMA), since the scheme began, all turning up with horrendous scores; litters where some of the puppies were affected some not, and sometimes, (dare I say it), dogs with poor hips producing 'good' hips. There is no rhyme or reason to it and in that way alone the scheme is failing.

The vast majority of pups bred in this country go to 'pet' homes where they will never be scored. I dare to believe that some people STILL do not submit x-rays when they are obviously poor. So the dogs that are scored are still a very small proportion of the entire population, which is obviously not giving an accurate picture.

Evidently HD is unknown among racing greyhounds but is beginning to appear in domestic populations. I think the same may go for Border Collies, and perhaps eventually for Foxhounds!! Surely this argues that dogs who are allowed to run free are better off than those restricted in free movement.

Which brings me to the most puzzling aspect in all this. Why is it that some dogs with VERY severe HD live to ripe old ages and never show any clinical signs of their condition, whereas others with relatively mild HD are totally incapacitated by the time they are six months old. A vet once told me it was down to personality; the former are stoic, the latter wimps!!!? I do not subscribe to this. If a Golden Retriever CAN get to its feet, it will! This brings me to the Penn Hipp method of hip scoring. (Groan). I wonder if this test may provide the explaination for this disparity?

Anyway, I'm keeping four of my best pals, (two of them with bad hip scores), waiting for their walk.  Very interested to hear the views of others.    

Evidently HD is unknown among racing greyhounds but is beginning to appear in domestic populations. I think the same may go for Border Collies, and perhaps eventually for Foxhounds!! Surely this argues that dogs who are allowed to run free are better off than those restricted in free movement.


I lost my BC who had severe HD on Sunday(with cancer)& he an ISDS BC no KC or pet breeding. He never limped or had any problem with his back legs.

Whilst I was with my vet we had a good chat about HD & there is no known case of HD in Racing Greyhounds we have a track near by(which is run excellently & has a good record for rehoming the unwanted dogs & not racing dogs too yeoung)My vets are the official vets for the track despite there being vets who are a lot closer, so they have masses of experience with racing greyhounds, he did say that RGs do have health problems at least not HD

With working BC's as opposed to Show/pet ones HD is no better or worse, the difference being that the working BC has on a whole much better musculature & this compensates to a great extent for any HD(like my own boy). they are rarely overweight which again adds to problems with bad HD

There is also a local hunt & I  remember the then senior vet years ago being very upset at having to pts most of one litter that had bad HD from being puppies, they could have led happy lives just not hunting & as hunts do not carry passengers or let dogs go as pets he had to put 7 out of ten puppies down. The practice then told the hunt they were no longer prepared to be the official vet(but would never refuse to treat a sick animal of course they just did not want to the routine vet work)The then senior vet was a friend of Alf Wight(James Herriot) I remember it caused a gret storm in the local press at the time

Jean,
You raise some interesting points..
The thing with hips scoring is that whilst for individual litters and individual dogs, there often appears to be "no rhyme or reason", over a population as a whole a pattern emerges.

I once had a bit of time and did a little analysis of labrador stud dogs. I used data that gave the hip score of the sire and the mean average score of their tested progeny. My sample was only around 100 studs with more than 10 progeny tested (some of the dogs had 3-400 tested progeny). The lowest average progeny score was about 8 up to about 23 for the "worst" stud dogs. The data showed obvious anomolies with a zero scoring stud having progeny with an average of about 22!. However when a trend line was plotted through this data a pattern emerged.

The trend line showed that ON AVERAGE the mean hip scores of the progeny increased by roughly a quarter of one point for every extra point on the stud dogs score. Not a huge amount, but a clear trend.

My own view is that by only breeding from low scoring dogs the average will gradually reduce. However, IMO it is much more important to focus on those dogs that actually regularly throw poor or excellent hips (whatever there own score is). I think that this data is of much more use than the actual score of the parents. Data of this kind can only be maintained if breeders continue to score.

Regarding the point about greyhounds, collies and foxhounds. In the working environment these dogs will either be able to perform their job to the required standard or not. If not, culling would be much more likely than a trip to the vets for an x-ray.

The 1993 BMS for Goldens was 20.3 Both 2003 and 2004 it had improved just one point to 19 although the median is 13. Whatever happens the BMS of Goldens is going to change very slowly because of the large number of dogs already scored.

Hip are not an exact science like for example eyes. An eye is a pass or fail and the reasons are there to see whereas hips are the product of both genetics and environment. Damage possibly accounts for almost as many bad hips as genes (in my opinion that is!) With eyes you have what you have and as a breed you accept or ignore a condition. The fact of inheritability is not in doubt. All this can mean you are chasing a mirage, ruling out a dog where no inherited hip problem exists.

The Americans love their statistics and OFFA, the Orthopaedic Foundation For Animals has collated a whole raft of matings from differing scoring dogs and bitches. Without going into too much detail, you will remember that hips are grouped into seven groups, 1 Excellent, 2 Good, 3 Fair, 4 Borderline, 5 Mild HD, 6 Moderate HD and 7 Severe HD. OFFA took a sample of 37640 Labradors with known hip status and followed the hips of the resultant puppies.

Excellent X Excellent gave 96% puppies with Excellent hips, Excellent Dam to good Sire came next with 94% and Good Dam to Excellent sire produced 93.4% Going to the other end of the spectrum, a displastic dam mated to an excellent sire produced 90.9 with normal hips whereas an excellent dam put to a displastic sire only produced 81.9%!! One thing which did surprise me was the mating of displastic dogs to displastic bitches. Obviously this was the worst group with 25% displastic puppies. Bad I know but I was staggered to find that mating the worst to the worst and three quarters of the puppies born had normal hips!

Of course, we don't know WHY the stud dogs and dams used in these statistics with bad hips had bad hips. Some at least almost certainly had hip damage rather than genetic faults.

As to why some dogs with bad hips have problems but others not, I wonder if the area of the problem might have an effect on it. If there is a problem in the load bearing area then there would be more problems for the dog than if the fault is in a less stress bearing area.

Yes, I take your point about small breeders but the fact remains that possibly 80% of puppies born these days come from the small breeder. Very few of the old time large breeding kennels exist these days so the small breeders exert an enormous influence on a breed. I hold the view that if a breeder cannot do the very best they can for their breed then they should not breed. If you think about it, we are breeding with stock handed down by the breeders who went before us. The breeders of tomorrow can only work with the stock we leave to them and if all we leave is sickly blind cripples what a terrible legacy we leave.

Regards, John

Hi John

Sorry to jump in on this one but I thought you might be able to help with regard to the conversion of our Hip Scoring here to say Germany, Sweden etc do you know of a site that has an acurate conversion chart that shows what say a 13/14 hip score here would be in Germany, Sweden etc
I have got one chart but it's about as clear as mud :0)

Thanks

  

Hi, Everything you say is very true. I would be interested to know where I could get a copy of the American study. Yes, I have a lot of empathy with small breeders, sandwiched as they are between an ever more litigious public and a veterinary profession that moves with the alacrity of retarded dinosaur.

I note that earlier you pointed out that we are paying for these x-rays and should make sure they are good x-rays. Interestingly in 1987 there was a section on the BVA score sheet which was titled FILM: Degree of tilt, Quality and Position. Today this has disappeared!! Realistically, how is an inexperienced person to know whether an x-ray is good or bad? Plus, vets don't generally show them to you for your opinion before submitting them.

I wonder why you are only allowed to present a dog for scoring only once. If I'm paying for it and enjoy the experience I don't see why I can't go every year. (Tongue in cheek!)

A thought; up to the 10th October 2001, 149,227 dogs in the UK alone, over all the breeds were presented for scoring. At the cost of approx. £145 per dog that amounts to £21,638,000. If vets are asked why their charges are so high they cite costly equipment, 'overheads', wages and research. I should think £21,638,000 will buy a lot of x-ray machines, and not much incentive to hurry along with the research. It's taken about fifteen years of campaigning to get a slight shift on the validity of yearly vaccinations.

I know HD is not totally genetic, but there is a large element of heritability. Imagine what it would be like if we could have a simple blood test at eight weeks. It would cut the wasted year, would not be influenced by trauma, diet or exercise, would be non-invasive, no anaesthetic or sedative, the pups future could be decided then and there and perhaps it wouldn't cost so much, but only perhaps! Also we wouldn't have to wait for eons for enough of a particular dogs progeny TO be tested before finding out the dog should never have been used in the first place.

Jean.

How do you tell a good plate!
You're looking for a plate with good contrast. Look at the shadows behind the femoral head, are they distinct? Are the edges of the bones hard? A thin plate lacking in contrast and with indistinct shadows can loose you a lot of marks!
Look at the femoral head. Look at the line of the spine through the "Hole" in the pelvis. Obviously this should be central and symmetrical. If it is not then the body is either twisted or leaning to one side. Either fault will destroy any chances of a good score. So often the vets don't do the x-rays, they are farmed out to the veterinary nurse! We are paying the bill and as such the vet is working for us. I suppose after all the years I've been sitting in the waiting room my vet knows me well enough to know what I want. (I do need to "Educate" some of the young ones from time to time though! ;) )

The reason why they will not accept a different plate in the event of a protest is to avoid the fraudulent use of a plate taken from a different dog. And believe me, this would in some cases happen! We do have reason to believe that occasionally we have a dog at the eye testing which I am co organiser of which is not the dog listed on the registration slip! (Of course, believing and proving are two very different things!)

I guess in time to come we will find the genetic marker for HD and a DNA test will be available but I'm not holding my breath! We have DNA tests now for a number of eye problems but it is anything but foolproof. We often see DNA passes at eye testing which are obvious failures, usually because the owner has had a DNA pass for their dog but suspects that the dog is not seeing properly.

The OFFA article I quoted from was sent to me by an American Labrador breeder and I believe was in their breed club newsletter. Unfortunately since then my computer crashed and I lost the original article. The figures I quoted were taken from a news letter I wrote for my dog club which I had taken from that original article. Have a look at the OFFA web site, there is a whole lot of info on there! http://www.offa.org/

Chili.

No need to apologise for jumping in. :)
13 to 14 total I presume you mean, equates to:- OFFA (USA) Fair, FCI (European) B1 and SV (Germany) Normal. Again, the full details are on the OFFA site.  

Best wishes, John

John

Thanks, that's much clearer than the one I've got :0)
Very interesting site too!!

Michelle

Feeling slightly worried by this latest info. I had my puppy's hips x-rayed on the 8th August, at one of the  Veterinary Universities.  I had made the booking last January for late October but in July they contacted me and said there'd been a mix up with bookings and could I bring her in on the 8th August, since she would be just a year old then.  She was x-rayed with a sedative rather than a general anaesthetic and when I saw the actual x-ray I wasn't all that happy.   I presume the x-ray had been actually taken by students, but the head of the department had obviously approved it because he talked me through it, and I just wasn't brave enough to say that she was lying diagonally across the plate and that if you ran a ruler along her spine and tail, there was far more body and skeleton on the right side of the plate than on the left. I also thought that it looked very much the skeletal frame of a baby; if it had been human I would have thought it was a child.

I've kept the pup very lean, I think she looks too lean just now.  She's all legs and head and moves like a foal in a very uncoordinated fashion because her legs are so long.  The only Golden that I've had that was bigger than her was a dog.  If she were a puppy that I'd bred myself, and I didn't know how old she was, I'd put her at about nine months.

I've kept her on restricted exercise but from very early on she's been on her hind legs at every available opportunity.  She stands at the window half the day watching what's going on outside, (not a lot), at the work surface for quarter of the day checking whether there's anything to eat, and at the baby gate for the other quarter wanting to be on the other side of it, (whichever side she's on): occasionally she walks from one to the other actually ON her hind legs.  (No amount of  scolding can prevent this behaviour).  Which is the only explanation I can think of for her hip score being a whopping 69, which is the worst I've ever had.  The chap at the University thought it would be between 70 and 80.

I'm not complaining about this but retrospectively I wish I'd waited until she was a lot older and had her x-rayed at my usual vets under general anaesthetic, but given this score I don't think it would have made that much difference.

   

Is there a large difference between having them sedated and having a GA on the resultant hip score? I thought the difference was marginal - as I'm looking at having my bitch sedated rather than putting her under a GA.

Hi  Ice Cosmos, I'm speaking very subjectively, and there's so much conflicting advice out there it's hard to know if you are doing the right thing, but here goes. With eight dogs over a 20 year period I have had two very good scores; two below the Breed Mean Average, two between 35 and 47 and two very high scores.  The two very high scores were both from dogs x-rayed using a sedative rather than GA;  the two middling scores were from dogs x-rayed at well over 4 years of age under GA, the other four from dogs x-rayed between fourteen and twenty-four months also under GA.

A sedated dog, however sedated is still able to walk, move and feel. Also, sometimes, to be nervous. A dog under general anaesthetic is totally relaxed in body and mind and pain/discomfort free. I was actually present when my first bitch was hip x-rayed under sedation, and I was very surprised at the amount of traction on the hind legs required to get the body positioned correctly. (Also surprised that doesn't CAUSE hip dysplasia).  I imagine it is very painful for a dog with poor hips and pretty uncomfortable for one with good hips. If they are only sedated I should think keeping them in the optimum position while everyone gets out of the way to take the x-ray if fairly difficult.

The argument for sedating them rather than giving GA is that a GA always involves a degree of risk to the animal, and since a hip x-ray is of no benefit to the dog and only done for the owner's convenience, it's not fair to put the dog at risk.

However in the past 20 years anaesthetics have improved tremendously and the dog doesn't need to under GA for very long to get a hip x-ray done. (My 15 yr old Golden had an op 4 months ago and bounced back very well!) 

So in my limited experience I would always in future have a GA for the dog, I'd be very careful about  what age I had the x-ray taken, (different dogs, even from the same breed, mature at different times) and I wouldn't just place total, blind faith in the vet giving me the right advice and doing the right thing!    

We have had our Golden Retrievers x-rayed for hip scores with no anaesthetic whatsoever (before the excellent vet that we used for hip-scoring retired) and currently with a full GA.

The scores obtained without anaesthesia and those with full anaesthesia have not really varied much. We have had a range of scores from excellent, through average, to poor with both methods.

I believe that the scoring will not really be altered much whatever method is used, the important issue is that the dog is positioned correctly and a clear x-ray is exposed, as John has already explained.

In this years Golden Retriever Club handbook, Dr Malcolm Willis has again explained the current hip status with reference to Golden's and has advised that, on average, the hip score is slowly improving by 0.3 points per annum.
This means that it will be many years before any meaningful change to the BMS is recorded, but at least we are moving in the right direction.

Our personal attempt to reduce the hip score average is to only mate bitches with a below average hip score to studs also with lower than average hip scores. We also take note of the hip scores of siblings and parents of the chosen stud dog, as it is possible to have a stud dog with low hips from higher scoring parents with higher scoring siblings.
It is important that the stud is not a fluke and that it comes from a line of average or less hips.

snomaes

Whichever method is used, GA, sedative or unmediated, the end result SHOULD be identical. As you say Jean, if the dog is able to move then the results can be ruined. Some breeds, Flatcoats for one, can have problems with a GA but really the reasons for the trouble is usually using unsuitable GA's for the breed. Most Flatcoat people know there are several anaesthetics which are a big NO NO for that breed.

As to x-raying without any medication, although one of my dogs was done this way, it is actually illegal. Many years ago it was the done thing when an x-ray of an animal was needed the vet would get the vet nurse to hold the animal in position. After holding many animals in a short time the nurses had absorbed dangerous amounts of radiation! Rules were made at that time to outlaw the practise for the safety of the nurses and assistants. Nowadays the KC says that they will not accept any plates made this way. At the time my dog was done I held the head end and the vet held the hind legs. It was so interesting to see the whole thing done but as the vet had something like 20 dogs to do that day she must have glowed in the dark when she finished!!

The effects of a poor x-ray cannot be emphasised enough. A friend of mine with a Holway bitch took her to his vets to be x-rays. On returning to pick up the dog he was told that the hips were very poor, possibly the upper 40's total. He said he was not satisfied with the plate. The vet said that there was nothing wrong with it and if he could get a better score with plates don't by someone else he would pay for them! My friend did just that and the bitch scored low single figures!!! The vet was as good as his word and did pay up! That bitch has since won several Field Trials.

Regards, John

Mals are one of the breeds that can have problems under GA which is why i'm opting for sedation. My vets are very good and do comply with my wishes as when my pup had to have two GA's (within the space of 4 days :( ), they took my advice and used the anaesthetic I asked them to, which is relatively safe for the breed.

John, Thank you for all the information re: Hip Dysplasia Scheme.  (I do have the BVA/KC leaflets explaining the interpretation of criteria, but in spite of a good grounding in anatomy/physiology I find them pretty hard going.)  In the unlikely event that I ever have the stamina and optimism to start again with another puppy I shall bear all these facts in mind.

I wonder if you could put one more thing in simple layman's terms for me?  The Finnish study I mentioned concluded that, "the relevant authorities should consider changing existing schemes to use best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) breeding values rather than phenotypic selection".

I know that the 'phenotype' is simply recording the physical, end result of a variety of causes, including, I now see, poor x-rays!!  But what is Best Linear Unbiased Prediction, (BLUP)??

Regards, Jean

BLUP 
The BLUP Index is a method of statistical analysis and estimation developed in 1948 by Dr. C.R. Henderson.  The BLUP (Best Linear Unbiased Prediction) estimation method allows for estimation and adjustment for systemic environmental effects simultaneous to prediction of breeding values.  Therefore, the BLUP allows and accounts for genetic differences between herds and generations.  A BLUP rating is linear because of the constant updating of the numbers and unbiased because there is little room for subjective opinion.  The resulting numbers allow breeders to make informed predictions when choosing breeding stock.

http://www.swbzone.com/blup/blup2002.htm

Phenotype
The physical constitution of an organism as determined by the interaction of its genetic constitution and the environment

The Collins Concise Dictionary.

There is actually quite a bit on BLUP on the net but it is not exactly clearly written and mainly concerning horse breeding! As I reading, marks are allocated to a trait or the degree of that trait. (As in hip scores) By allocating a mark to as many ancestors and prodigy as possible and dividing the resultant number by the number of dogs in the chain. By doing this you end up with a series of averages for individual families of dogs rather than breed average or individual score. You can then compare individual families rather than comparing indeviduals with the BMS

As I said, this is my reading of it and I could be barking up the wrong tree although I can see the logic of doing things this way. I remember, some 30 years ago reading a series of open letters in either Dog World or Our Dogs which contained arguments between the two leading men in their field, Dr Malcolm Willis and Dr. Hellmuth Wachtel. I remember it was, as you might expect from these two august gentlemen, quite heated and as I remember it all these years later they never did agree!

On the 12th of October I'll be talking to someone who I'm sure will be able to tell me where I've got it wrong so I'll have a word with him and see what he says.

One further point on hip scoring. You earlier mentioned the Penn-Hipp method. Personally I'm not happy with differing methods being used because of loosing the coherent results you get from all dogs being tested in an identical way. All results from tests carried out using one standardised method should be comparable but once other methods are brought into play then we loose that standardisation. It matters not what the actual score is, what matters is that the results are consistent and able to be duplicated. To have results arrived at using two different methods to me means that we would loose the uniformity of the results.
What we really do need is a better standard of x-rays. Better education of radiographers. A good radiographer cannot give a dog a better score but a poor radiographer can certainly give a dog a worse score. The better score is not really a better score, it is the true score.
    
Regards, John      

Have looked at a couple of articles on Best Linear Unbiased Prediction, (BLUP).  Good gracious me!  I would be very interested to know, in lay-man's terms how that would be applied.  With regard to HD alone, I presume you would still have to have actual scores?

With regard to the Penn-Hipp method of scoring; as I understand it, at present it is used separately from the Norberg-Olsson method, and involves taking two further x-rays from different angles, giving a better all-round 'picture' of the status of the hips, which would perhaps cut down on some of the error factor in one single x-ray.  So I just wonder if some type of synthesis or amalgamation of the two methods wouldn't be possible.

I too believe tests should be standardised and as accurate as possible, as with the eye-tests.  Which is what really started me on this train of thought re: the Norberg Angle.  As was said at the beginning, the Norberg Angle is an exact measurement using an ischiometer,  whereas the remainder of the facets that make up our current hip score are based on human judgement, using the features that exist on that actual x-ray.  As Anwen said, 'the funny bits'.  I have a feeling that there may exist some confusion over the word 'dysplasia'.  I think it may sometimes be used interchangeably with displaced or dislocated.  When my vet said, 'there is no dysplasia, perhaps just a sniff of arthritis', dysplasia IS the 'sniff of arthritis'. In the case of my six year old bitch the measured Norberg Angle at 0:1 is virtually perfect, and on the x-ray looks like a well formed ball sitting in a well formed socket, therefore why would she go on to develop dysplasia or a sniff of arthritis?  I feel it must be simply the normal wear and tear that one would expect from six years of very active life.  ( Now seven she does at least five miles a day, can keep up with a hare and can jump five feet in the air from a standstill. That is not just being stoic or coping well).  Stretching it to its greatest parameters I simply cannot believe that a dog x-rayed at 18 months old, with a good score, would still have identical hips at 15 years old.

I was fairly certain when my 14 month old bitch was 12 to 14 weeks old that she did have poor hips.  There is a very distinctive gait with HD, and it's not 'bunny hopping'.  What threw me was that the young bitch comes from lines of very good hips over several generations.  Yet, with a Norberg Angle of 6:6 her body is already frantically trying to repair itself with dysplastic tissue.  Luckily for her she's not one of the ones that couldn't get up at all at six months, but I know that the rest of her life will be a constant management problem which will grow worse with every passing year.  In fact after generations of selective breeding for hips, what I have is a very unhealthy dog. 

I also have a feeling that a lot of vets aren't ecstatic about being the ones that have to take these x-rays.  Perhaps The Kennel Club/BVA should consider setting up dedicated, specialist centres to administer them, where the staff would be competent in a narrow range of skills. Eg.  How to do a perfect x-ray!

Regards, Jean      

Yes! BLUP sites are anything but "User Friendly" in their description!! As you say, scores would obviously still be needed to provide the data for the calculation. So from that point of view we are still down to human interpretation of the plates.

I also agree with you that hips deteriorate with age although I believe the deterioration would be far more marginal. The reason I say that is because a dog's life is in human terms so short. HD was diagnosed in humans hundreds of years before it was ever found in dogs. Some people have such severe HD that their hips do not last their life out, needing replacing with an artificial joint. Maybe we do not generally run around to the extent that dogs do but we do have other traits which go towards ruining our hips. Think about it, because of our standing vertically the load bearing part of out hip is 90deg round from that of a dog. Also all our weight is carried on just two legs rather than four. I realise this is not strictly true because possibly 75% of motive force in a dog is generated by the hind legs, the front is really only used to prop up the front end. (Witness the size of muscle in the hind leg compared with the front!) What I'm really saying is that bone which can quite happily last most humans for up to 100 years should be capable of lasting a dog for 15 years without too much wear.

Any visual and subjective check as hip scoring is will always be prone to variations in results. This is particularly true when several people are involved with checking the plates. There are computer controlled exposure meters which a photographer can use to establish the exposure to use when printing a photograph. I would have thought something like this could be used to evaluate the suitability of a plate. Anything which did not fall between the tolerance band would be returned to the vet unscored. Maybe plates should be scored independently by three people and the average of these scores issued. Obviously this would take more time and payment made to three people rather than one but it would help to remove a variable from the equation. It would also provide feedback to the radiographer. After getting some plates back and being forced to call the dog back for re x-raying AT THEIR OWN EXPENCE I think the standard of plates submitted would soon improve!

Regards, John

As I said previously, there used to be a section on the BVA score sheet which concerned the film presented and noted :- Degree of tilt; quality and position.  It is no longer there.  I certainly do think poor film should be returned to the vet in question if it is not suitable in any way.  If all dogs presented for hip scoring were also microchipped there would be no question of unscrupulous owners presenting a different dog.  I intend to write to the BVA about these concerns but will no doubt get a letter back stating, 'your concerns have been noted', if I get anything at all.

Human beings actually get congenital dislocation; to quote, " Because of its complex structure the hip is extremely stable......this stability means that in adult life dislocation of the hip is a very rare injury, although, paradoxically, it is not only the most common hip problem of childhood, but also the most common at birth.......Five times as many girl babies as boys are affected by congenital dislocation of the hip....If the hips are not actually dislocated, but 'irritable' the legs are kept wide apart until the ligaments and muscles around the joint have developed enough strength to overcome the problem naturally".

Dysplasia is defined by the dictionary as the 'abnormal growth of tissue'.  The abnormal growth of tissue is arthritis.  To quote again,  "The commonest form of arthritis in the hips is osteoarthritis.  This affects many middle-aged and elderly people; it is present in almost everyone who reaches the age of  70.  Essentially, osteoarthritis is caused by excessive wear of the joint.  People who are very overweight may develop severe osteoarthritis in their hips as early as their 40's.  Anyone who has led an extremely active life or played a great deal of body-contact sports such as rugby football may also be prone to osteoarthritis in the hip."

So congenital dislocation is a problem of babies and children; dysplasia is caused by 'excessive wear of the joint'.  In my humble opinion Norberg Angle = Degree of dislocation; the remainder of the score = degree of arthritis, or dysplasia, caused by the initial, (and probably congenital), degree of dislocation.  I haven't seen enough scores to know, but I bet one never sees a Norberg Angle of even 4:4, with the total score of under 20, given that the dog is xrayed during the second year of life.  I bet in cases where there is an excessive uneveness of score on each hip, (e.g. 4:18), which people put down to trauma, it starts in a relatively small difference in the Norberg Angle.

Surely an old dog is an old dog.  He's not 15 years old in human terms, (merely adolescent), but nearer to 75.
Regards, Jean