Penn Hip or OFA?
|
|
| OFA rather then Penn Hip
Penn Hip is fine when there is huge numbers of a breed on the Penn Hip register Useless for OES not enough numbers registered for Penn Hip so most come back with a good results regardless as it goes on averages. 
Mine always the other way and not penn hip, penn hip can be done here but has to go to the states to be graded. Other way the X-rays go to a central reading place to be put on a register. 5 radiographers assess the x-ray then the overall average is what the score is for here. Both sides of the hips are measured and graded so when your HD cert comes back you get an individual score for each side plus the combined score and also what the overall combined breed average is also. At the moment the breed average for hips here is 17.5 combined I think in the UK it is 23 combined at the moment. |
| Hi
I do both but prefer the PennHip lisaoes wrote: Useless for OES not enough numbers registered for Penn Hip so most come back with a good results regardless as it goes on averages. That's not true. PennHip gives you the distraction index, and that is good per se. Regardless the breed, the lower DIs are better, with the ones lower than 0.3 meaning that hips are sound and will never develop DJD. You only need large numbers to build a probability curve of DI versus DJD. I don't know what you mean as "good results regardless the averages", but last time I PennHip'ed a dog (last year) the number of OES in the database was 179 and the median value was 0.52 (as a term for comparison, in 2007 there were more than 10000 Golden Retrievers in the database, and the median value was 0.54, so perhaps, despite the "low" numbers of OES in the database, it's not so bad as a sample group). If the median is 0.52 that means that 50% of the dogs have scored under 0.52 and 50% have scored above 0.52. So I don't know how you get always good results ... lisaoes wrote: penn hip can be done here but has to go to the states to be graded.
For me, that's one of the advantages of the scheme. Regardless where you live, the x-rays are read the same way, so it is much easier to compare results of dogs that live in very different places. Recently, there has been a dog that has been graded A/B in Europe and unilaterally mildly dysplastic by OFA ... Who to believe? And, despite having to send the x-rays to the US, the results are at home in less than 2 weeks, including the transit time in the post. With the conventional scheme here, I have to wait 3 months for the result. Conventional x-rays are too much dependent on good positionning, which is not always easy to achieve, and rely too much in subjective appreciation. And we should also question why, after 30 years of using the convencional x-rays, the % of dysplasic dogs remains more or less the same ... For me, the only real drawback of PennHip is the cost (approx. the double of the convencional one). |
SeaLords wrote: Conventional x-rays are too much dependent on good positionning, which is not always easy to achieve, and rely too much in subjective appreciation. And we should also question why, after 30 years of using the convencional x-rays, the % of dysplasic dogs remains more or less the same ....
Isn't positioning critical in both? A friend did PennHip and had to have her dog put under AGAIN to have them redone. Not that this doesn't happen with OFA x-rays too. More to the point, where is the percentage of dysplastic dogs remaining roughly constant and under what hip evaluation system? In the US, the rate and especially the severity of CHD in the screened population has decreased over time, and that's with a predominant reliance on OFA. Not saying OFA is necessarily the gold standard for rating hips because it definitely has its flaws. But nor am I convinced that PennHip is the answer despite its much touted predictive value. Especially, as Lisa notes, in cases where the growth plates have not yet closed. No screening system that relies on phenotype will ever be perfect. Perhaps now would be a good time to remind everyone that OES is one of the breeds participating in the Ostrander HD study. From the OESCA health website http://www.oeshealth.org/NewsFlash1.htm#200701HipStudy January 19, 2007 Ostrander Hip Dysplasia Study Participants Wanted! As some of you may know, the Old English Sheepdog has been chosen to participate in a research study being conducted by the Ostrander Lab to locate the genes for hip dysplasia. They are looking for 20 unrelated dogs who have been diagnosed by OFA with Excellent hips, and 20 unrelated dogs who have been diagnosed with Moderate to Severe hip dyplasia by your vet, OFA or Penn Hip. Participation in this study requires a blood sample, 3 generation pedigree, and a copy of your dog's Hip x-rays. If OFA has the copy of your dog's hip x-rays, then a consent for release of the x-rays will need to be signed. If your dog generously gave blood for this study at the 2005 Centennial Show and was rated OFA Excellent or with hip dysplasia, contact Dana Mosher in the Ostrander Lab to complete the requirements of the study. If you have any questions, need to sign a consent form, need supplies for drawing blood samples, or to further discuss the study, please contact: Dana Mosher Samples Manager/Ostrander Lab - CGB/NHGRI/NIH Bldg 50 Room 5347, 50 South Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-8000 Phone: 301-451-9390 - Fax: 301-594-0023 - mosherd@mail.nih.gov Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: More to the point, where is the percentage of dysplastic dogs remaining roughly constant and under what hip evaluation system? In the US, the rate and especially the severity of CHD in the screened population has decreased over time, and that's with a predominant reliance on OFA. In the US, and in many other countries, almost only the x-rays that have the chance to pass are sent to be classified. So, the figures are partial, and tend to give a better picture than the reality is. So, the OFA numbers are not good to say that any progress has been made. Mad Dog wrote: Not saying OFA is necessarily the gold standard for rating hips because it definitely has its flaws. But nor am I convinced that PennHip is the answer despite its much touted predictive value. Especially, as Lisa notes, in cases where the growth plates have not yet closed. What's the problem with the growth plates not yet closed? PennHip measures the laxity of the joint, so you don't have to wait for the growth to stop to have it measured. One of the problems that I encounter with the detractors of the PennHip method is that they don't understand what is it that is being measured and why OFA only accepts x-rays from dogs older than 24 months. Mad Dog wrote: Perhaps now would be a good time to remind everyone that OES is one of the breeds participating in the Ostrander HD study. From the OESCA health website http://www.oeshealth.org/NewsFlash1.htm#200701HipStudy
That call has more than 2 years now, I don't think they need any samples ... Nor have they been doing much progress, as a matter of fact ... |
SeaLords wrote: That call has more than 2 years now, I don't think they need any samples ... Nor have they been doing much progress, as a matter of fact ...
Well, that's half true 
Predictably they have enough samples of dogs with excellent ratings. Apparently not so for the dysplastic part of the samples needed. This came up just last week during a teleconference regarding a different type of research OESCA may consider pursuing, the success of which will also be contingent upon owner/breeder willingness to participate. Kristine |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|