Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · VCOT Open 2022; 05(02): e123-e130
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750030
Original Article

Thoracic Limb Angular Deformity in Chondrodystrophic Dogs: Repeatability of Goniometric Measurement of External Rotation and Carpal Valgus

Hanna S.M. Pulkkinen 
1   Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Anu K. Lappalainen
1   Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Jouni J.T. Junnila 
2   4Pharma Ltd., Helsinki, Finland
3   EstiMates Oy, Espoo, Finland
,
Outi M. Laitinen-Vapaavuori
1   Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Heli K. Hyytiäinen
1   Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective We aimed to provide repeatable methods for quantifying antebrachial valgus and rotation in dogs with and without complex angular deformities. Thus, we investigated the repeatability of two methods to measure carpal valgus and one method to measure external rotation of the thoracic limb in a standing position.

Study Design This was a prospective observer agreement study with a sample of 18 non-chondrodystrophic dogs as baseline and 43 chondrodystrophic dogs. The rotation measurements (ROT), modified valgus measurements (VALG-M), and established carpal valgus measurements (VALG) were done independently by two investigators. Repeatability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results The measured mean (± standard deviation) angles of ROT, VALG-M, and VALG for non-chondrodystrophic dogs were 14 degrees (± 5 degrees), 9 degrees (± 4 degrees), and 4 degrees (± 3 degrees) and 30 degrees (± 13 degrees) and 23 degrees (± 11 degrees) for ROT and VALG-M for chondrodystrophic dogs respectively. In non-chondrodystrophic dogs, ICC was low with mean errors of 1 to 6 degrees, whereas in chondrodystrophic dogs, intra- and intertester ICC was high for ROT and VALG-M with mean errors of 3 to 8 degrees.

Conclusion The ROT and VALG-M methods can be used as reliable tools to objectively quantify aspects of thoracic limb alignment for research, clinical, and screening purposes in both non-chondrodystrophic and chondrodystrophic dogs. The mean values of ROT, VALG-M, and VALG can be used as references for non-chondrodystrophic dogs in the standing position.

Keywords

dog - angular deformity - chondrodystrophy - valgus - rotation - radial torsion


Publication History

Received: 13 January 2020

Accepted: 31 January 2022

Article published online:
21 October 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Ramadan RO, Vaughan LC. Premature closure of the distal ulnar growth plate in dogs–a review of 58 cases. J Small Anim Pract 1978; 19 (11) 647-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Theyse LFH, Voorhout G, Hazewinkel HAW. Prognostic factors in treating antebrachial growth deformities with a lengthening procedure using a circular external skeletal fixation system in dogs. Vet Surg 2005; 34 (05) 424-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 O'Brien TR, Morgan JP, Suter PF. Epiphyseal plate injury in the dog: a radiographic study of growth disturbance in the forelimb. J Small Anim Pract 1971; 12 (01) 19-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lau R. Inherited premature closure of distal ulnar physis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1977; 13 (05) 609-612
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lappalainen AK, Hyvärinen T, Junnila J, Laitinen-Vapaavuori O. Radiographic evaluation of elbow incongruity in Skye terriers. J Small Anim Pract 2016; 57 (02) 96-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cooley K, Kroner K, Muir P, Hetzel SJ, Bleedorn JA. Assessment of overall thoracic limb axial alignment in dogs with antebrachial deformity. Vet Surg 2018; 47 (08) 1074-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Knapp JL, Tomlinson JL, Fox DB. Classification of angular limb deformities affecting the canine radius and ulna using the center of rotation of angulation method. Vet Surg 2016; 45 (03) 295-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Samoy Y, Van Ryssen B, Gielen I. Elbow incongruity in the dog–review of the literature. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006; 19 (01) 1-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kwon M, Kwon D, Lee J, Lee K, Yoon H. Evaluation of the radial procurvatum using the center of rotation of angulation methodology in chondrodystrophic dogs. Front Vet Sci 2022; 8: 774993 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.774993.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Piras LA, Peirone B, Fox D. Effects of antebrachial torsion on the measurement of angulation in the frontal plane: a cadaveric radiographic analysis. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25 (02) 89-94
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dismukes DI, Fox DB, Tomlinson JL, Essman SC. Use of radiographic measures and three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging in surgical correction of an antebrachial deformity in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 232 (01) 68-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Meola SD, Wheeler JL, Rist CL. Validation of a technique to assess radial torsion in the presence of procurvatum and valgus deformity using computed tomography: a cadaveric study. Vet Surg 2008; 37 (06) 525-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bindra RR, Cole RJ, Yamaguchi K. et al. Quantification of the radial torsion angle with computerized tomography in cadaver specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79 (06) 833-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kroner K, Cooley K, Hoey S, Hetzel SJ, Bleedorn JA. Assessment of radial torsion using computed tomography in dogs with and without antebrachial limb deformity. Vet Surg 2017; 46 (01) 24-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Walker H, Pizzari T, Wajswelner H. et al. The reliability of shoulder range of motion measures in competitive swimmers. Phys Ther Sport 2016; 21: 26-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lenssen AF, van Dam EM, Crijns YH. et al. Reproducibility of goniometric measurement of the knee in the in-hospital phase following total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8 (08) 83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Holm I, Bolstad B, Lütken T, Ervik A, Røkkum M, Steen H. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visual estimates of hip ROM in patients with osteoarthrosis. Physiother Res Int 2000; 5 (04) 241-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stuberg WA, Fuchs RH, Miedaner JA. Reliability of goniometric measurements of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1988; 30 (05) 657-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Smith TO, Hunt NJ, Donell ST. The reliability and validity of the Q-angle: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16 (12) 1068-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Farber DC, Deorio JK, Steel III MW. Goniometric versus computerized angle measurement in assessing hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 2005; 26 (03) 234-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ates S, Hallaceli C, Kürtül I. Goniometric measurements of the angular values of the joints in the fore- and hindlimbs of Kangal dogs. Isr J Vet Med 2011; 66 (04) 166-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ben-Amotz R, Dycus D, Levine D, Arruda AG, Fagan N, Marcellin-Little D. Stance and weight distribution after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in fore limb and hind limb amputee dogs. BMC Vet Res 2020; 16 (01) 188 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02402-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jaegger G, Marcellin-Little DJ, Levine D. Reliability of goniometry in Labrador Retrievers. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63 (07) 979-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Thomas TM, Marcellin-Little DJ, Roe SC, Lascelles BDX, Brosey BP. Comparison of measurements obtained by use of an electrogoniometer and a universal plastic goniometer for the assessment of joint motion in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67 (12) 1974-1979
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nicholson HL, Osmotherly PG, Smith BA, McGowan CM. Determinants of passive hip range of motion in adult Greyhounds. Aust Vet J 2007; 85 (06) 217-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Thomovsky SA, Chen AV, Kiszonas AM, Lutskas LA. Goniometry and limb girth in Miniature Dachshunds. J Vet Med 2016; 2016: 5846052 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5846052.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Reusing M, Brocardo M, Weber S, Villanova Jr J. Goniometric evaluation and passive range of joint motion in chondrodystrophic and non-chondrodystrophic dogs of different sizes. VCOT Open. 2020; 03: e66-e71
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Jaeger GH, Marcellin-Little DJ, Depuy V, Lascelles BD. Validity of goniometric joint measurements in cats. Am J Vet Res 2007; 68 (08) 822-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 International Elbow Working Group. Explanation of grading according to IEWG and discussion of cases. Proceedings; 31st Annual Meeting of the International Elbow Working Group. 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Fluckiger M. Scoring radiographs for canine hip dysplasia – the big three organisations in the world. Eur J Companion Anim Pract 2007; 17: 135-140
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tousignant M, Boucher N, Bourbonnais J, Gravelle T, Quesnel M, Brosseau L. Intratester and intertester reliability of the Cybex electronic digital inclinometer (EDI-320) for measurement of active neck flexion and extension in healthy subjects. Man Ther 2001; 6 (04) 235-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lee KM, Lee J, Chung CY. et al. Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Surg 2012; 4 (02) 149-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hall JM, Azar FM, Miller III RH, Smith R, Throckmorton TW. Accuracy and reliability testing of two methods to measure internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23 (09) 1296-1300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Armstrong AD, MacDermid JC, Chinchalkar S, Stevens RS, King GJ. Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998; 7 (06) 573-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ashton BB, Pickles B, Roll JW. Reliability of goniometric measurements of hip motion in spastic cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1978; 20 (01) 87-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar