# PennHIP



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Started this on another forum... but no one wants to discuss there it seems...

The points I wish to discuss in this thread:


> 2. The distraction index does not change significantly over time.
> 
> A study of large breed dogs showed that the distraction index stayed the same over time (within acceptable statistical limits) and was much more reliable over time than other methods such as the Norberg angle and the OFA scoring method.
> 
> ...


number 2 was interesting simply because everyone rushes to do OFA at 2 years of age "hurry, get the hips xray'ed"

number 5 was a jaw dropper for me... so "normal" ofa hips can be actually bad... not good news.

considering 9 and how bad positioning can make a "good" hipped dog look "poor"... the fact that you can take 2 films of the same dog, the same day, one less well positioned, and get an "excellent" on one and a "fair" on another is a big issue... if the test were ideal you should get "excellent" on one, and "inconclusive, reshoot" on the other.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

I've *heard* that Pennhip was more reliable but found this interesting concerning OFA.


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Sarah Platts said:


> I've *heard* that Pennhip was more reliable but found this interesting concerning OFA.


Well, I went that route because its 3 different positions, one putting a load on the hips, and because its computer evaluated = no subjectivity. And you get a score on each hip rather than a "good, fair, etc".


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Hunter Allred said:


> 5. 80% of dogs evaluated as “normal” by the OFA were found to have hip laxity by PennHIP testing that predisposed them to developing hip osteoarthritis in the future.
> 
> Dogs judged as normal by the OFA harbored clinically important passive hip joint laxity as determined via the PennHIP distraction index. Results suggested that OFA scoring radiographs (x-rays) underestimated susceptibility to osteoarthritis in dogs. The presence of these “normal” dogs in the breeding pool may slow the progress of decreasing hip dysplasia prevalence.
> 
> ...


I'm reading "predisposed", not "did go on later to have". Also "results suggested" and "may". IE nothing concrete saying "Of the 1000 dogs tested, 600 of the dogs that had passing OFA scores were later re-evaluated and had osteoarthritis". Or something similar.

I've read a lot of the articles back and forth on OFA and PennHip, each one I read makes a bunch of points that sound good, but none of them seem to have definitive facts that say "this test is better than that test". I think they both have their value, frankly with the costs of x-rays (over 500 last time I had hips and elbows done for OFA) I'd probably start shopping with my wallet regarding which one I did, I think the most important part is that the hips and elbows are checked.


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I'm reading "predisposed", not "did go on later to have". Also "results suggested" and "may". IE nothing concrete saying "Of the 1000 dogs tested, 600 of the dogs that had passing OFA scores were later re-evaluated and had osteoarthritis". Or something similar.
> 
> I've read a lot of the articles back and forth on OFA and PennHip, each one I read makes a bunch of points that sound good, but none of them seem to have definitive facts that say "this test is better than that test". I think they both have their value, frankly with the costs of x-rays (over 500 last time I had hips and elbows done for OFA) I'd probably start shopping with my wallet regarding which one I did, I think the most important part is that the hips and elbows are checked.


I'm inclined to think PennHIP must be better since one of the three films IS the OFA position... more data is typically better. 

I've never seen any of the OFA points that say why OFA is better. Could you share?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Hunter Allred said:


> I'm inclined to think PennHIP must be better since one of the three films IS the OFA position... more data is typically better.
> 
> I've never seen any of the OFA points that say why OFA is better. Could you share?


I will have to go Google it and get back to you. These were just various articles I read over the years discussing the pots and cons of each method.


----------



## Kristian Taves (Jul 2, 2013)

Find a study supporting use of PennHIP that does not include the name "Smith GK" the founder of PennHIP.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

I've been going over this for several years on the AB boards and if your breed has a DI greater than .30 as the median than OFA is a better route to go. My breed is the Amer. Bulldog and the median DI (.52) for them is dysplastic roughly about 50% of the time by the age of 3 years old according to PennHip's studies and AB's was one of the breeds they used in the studies. 
What many fail to understand is that PennHip has nothing without the extended view ie the OFA view. Because it is the only view that will reveal if you dog in fact has CHD. PennHip can only predict if a dog will develop OA with a certain DI (higher than .30). 
PennHip also states that the older the dog is at the time of x-ray the more accurate the test is. Why is that? Because while the DI may not change (and it does) something else does and that is the structure and or formation of the hip joint. Which is why OFA will only certify at or after the age of 2 years old, while PennHip will certify at 4 mos old. 
CHD is a progressive disease so what wasn't there at 4mos old may very well be there at 2-3 years old.
Something else while 2 of the 3 views that PennHip does may be un-subjective the one that counts is and that's the extended view. What makes it subjective is the fact that a human is reading the films and as of yet they have been able to create a computer that can do it.
OFA has three board certified orthopedic specialists evaluating the submitted x-rays and PennHip has only one "God knows who" looking at the extended view they received. Hmmm! Not to mention one can OFA hips and elbows for a lot less than it cost to PennHip hips.


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Lynda Myers said:


> I've been going over this for several years on the AB boards and if your breed has a DI greater than .30 as the median than OFA is a better route to go. My breed is the Amer. Bulldog and the median DI (.52) for them is dysplastic roughly about 50% of the time by the age of 3 years old according to PennHip's studies and AB's was one of the breeds they used in the studies.
> What many fail to understand is that PennHip has nothing without the extended view ie the OFA view. Because it is the only view that will reveal if you dog in fact has CHD. PennHip can only predict if a dog will develop OA with a certain DI (higher than .30).
> PennHip also states that the older the dog is at the time of x-ray the more accurate the test is. Why is that? Because while the DI may not change (and it does) something else does and that is the structure and or formation of the hip joint. Which is why OFA will only certify at or after the age of 2 years old, while PennHip will certify at 4 mos old.
> CHD is a progressive disease so what wasn't there at 4mos old may very well be there at 2-3 years old.
> ...


This is more valuable information than what I've gotten in the past. Thanks


----------



## eric squires (Oct 16, 2008)

I use both OFA and PennHip. Elbows still have to be certified OFA so I have the hips viewed as well. It is usually a prelim cert because of age. I have a third generation PennHip female and it has been informative to watch the DI scores as the generations progress. She is an complete outcross.


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

eric squires said:


> I use both OFA and PennHip. Elbows still have to be certified OFA so I have the hips viewed as well. It is usually a prelim cert because of age. I have a third generation PennHip female and it has been informative to watch the DI scores as the generations progress. She is an complete outcross.


Informative in what way? What did you observe? Have you ever pennHIP'ed the same dog over their life?


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Hunter Allred said:


> This is more valuable information than what I've gotten in the past. Thanks


Your welcome Hunter! 
In the past I have done both and believe PennHip to be a good tool provided the dog is at least 2 years old.
What I don't like about PennHip is that they don't have an open database like OFA does and they don't actually grade the quality of the hip joint. An in a breed where shallow sockets are the norm like in the AB, I really want all information I can get with regard to the hips.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Any thing on the pennhip website is pure marketing. It all sounds good but all they do is an OFA type evaluation and give you a DI index that says anything over .3 could become dysplastic. Its already been demonstrated that the DI can change. They bank on no one doing follow ups over the course of the dogs life.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Hunter Allred said:


> number 5 was a jaw dropper for me... so "normal" ofa hips can be actually bad... not good news.



there is a difference between hip dysplasia and osteoarthritis. a "normal" hip where actual dysplasia is concerned can still get osteoarthritis in the future. 

Osteoarthritis is often caused by general aging and breakdown of cartilage, not always by pre-malformed bone structures themselves.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

At two yrs old I was told my dog had Moderate HD AND signs of arthritis. 
Now at plus 10 he's showing signs of one or both.


----------



## eric squires (Oct 16, 2008)

No I have never PennHipped the same dogs again as the expense is prohibitive. Also I have worked the dogs and as of yet have had no reason to suspect hips problems. I believe it is informative in that you can see changes to the DI scores or not as the generations progress.


----------

