Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · VCOT Open 2020; 03(02): e66-e71
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713825
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Goniometric Evaluation and Passive Range of Joint Motion in Chondrodystrophic and Non-Chondrodystrophic Dogs of Different Sizes

Mhayara Reusing
1   Graduate Program in Animal Science, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
,
Mayara Brocardo
2   Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
,
Saulo Weber
1   Graduate Program in Animal Science, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
,
José Villanova Jr.
1   Graduate Program in Animal Science, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 March 2019

15 May 2020

Publication Date:
26 July 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate angle values in maximal flexion and extension; the passive range of motion (PROM) of the shoulder, elbow, carpal, hip, stifle and tarsus; and the carpal abduction and adduction of chondrodystrophic (CD) and non-chondrodystrophic (NCD) dogs of different sizes.

Study Design Goniometric evaluation was performed in triplicate using a universal goniometer. CD dogs were categorized into miniature, small, medium, large and giant sizes, whereas NCD dogs were allocated to small- and medium-size groups. Hence, each of the seven subgroups comprised 11 clinically healthy dogs. For data analysis, the Levene test was used to evaluate homoscedasticity. The means of each joint angle with the means in each group as well as the PROM between the CD and NCD groups was compared by the Student's t-test; meanwhile, the means of the joint angles and ROM among the sizes were compared by analysis of variance, followed by the Tukey test. In those cases, when no homogeneity variance was observed, the Bonferroni test was used. In every case, p ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

Results The articular angles and PROM differed according to the dog size and type, that is, CD or NCD.

Conclusion The goniometric values and PROM of dogs depend on the joint type, dog size and chondrodystrophy status. Further studies are necessary to increase the accuracy of the results and to establish the predominant factors governing the differences discovered.

Keywords

dog - goniometry - chondrodystrophy - passive range of motion

Authors' Contributions

M.B. executed the experiment and registered the data. M.R. and S.W. did statistical analysis. J.V., M.R., and S.W. interpreted the results and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual contribution. All the authors approved the final version.


 

  • References

  • 1 Boone DC, Azen SP. Normal range of motion of joints in male subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61 (05) 756-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gordon-Evans WK, Kim S, Kurt S. Fundamentals of Physical Rehabilitation. In: Fossum TW. , ed. Small Animal Surgery. 4th edition. St. Louis: Mosby; 2013: 114-130
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Norkin CC, White DJ. Medida do movimento articular: manual de goniometria. 2a ed. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Youdas JW, Bogard CL, Suman VJ. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visual estimates of ankle joint active range of motion obtained in a clinical setting. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74 (10) 1113-1118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kramer A, Hesbach AL, Sprague S. Introduction to canine rehabilitation. In: Zink C, Janet B. , eds. Canine Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2nd edition. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell; 2018: 96-119
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Gogia PP, Braatz JH, Rose SJ, Norton BJ. Reliability and validity of goniometric measurements at the knee. Phys Ther 1987; 67 (02) 192-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
  • 8 Mendonça GBN. Goniometria em cães da raça Rottweiler. [Masters dissertation]. Goiânia: Universidade Federal de Goiás; 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Figueiredo M, Silva C, Fernandes T, Chioratto R, Tudury E. Exame ortopédico, com e sem anestesia geral, de cães com luxação patelar medial. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 2012; 64 (05) 1156-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Marques AP. Manual de goniometria. 2nd edition. São Paulo: Manole; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Millis DL, Levine D, Taylor RA. Range-of-motion and stretching exercises. In: Saunders P. , ed. Canine Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2014: 431-446
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 von Pfeil DJ, Duerr FM. The Orthopedic Examination. Canine Lameness. Fort Collins: Wiley-Blackwell; 2020: 31-39
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Foster S. The Rehabilitation Examination. Canine Lameness. Fort Collins: Wiley-Blackwell; 2020: 67-84
    Google Scholar
  • 14 McCarthy J, Comerford EJ, Innes JF, Pettitt RA. Elbow arthrodesis using a medially positioned plate in 6 dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2020; 33 (01) 51-58
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hesbach AL. Techniques for objective outcome assessment. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2007; 22 (04) 146-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zink C, Van Dyke JB. Canine Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Alievi MM, Schossler JE, Teixeira MW. Goniometria da articulação tíbio-tarsal após imobilização temporária com fixador esquelético externo em cães. Cienc Rural 2004; 34 (02) 425-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tomlinson J, Fox D, Cook JL, Keller GG. Measurement of femoral angles in four dog breeds. Vet Surg 2007; 36 (06) 593-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hady LL, Fosgate GT, Weh JM. Comparison of range of motion in Labrador Retrievers and Border Collies. J Vet Med Anim Health 2015; 7 (04) 122-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sabanci SS, Ocal MK. Comparison of goniometric measurements of the stifle joint in seven breeds of normal dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (03) 214-219
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Thomovsky SA, Chen AV, Kiszonas AM, Lutskas LA. Goniometry and Limb Girth in Miniature Dachshunds. J Vet Med 2016; 2016: 5846052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jaeger GH, Marcellin-Little DJ, Depuy V, Lascelles BDX. Validity of goniometric joint measurements in cats. Am J Vet Res 2007; 68 (08) 822-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sengöz Şirin O, Timuçin Celik M, Özmen A, Avki S. Measurements of normal joint angles by goniometry in calves. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27 (02) 120-123
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Govoni VM, Rahal SC, Agostinho FS, Conceição RT, Tsunemi MH, El-Warrak AO. Goniometric measurements of the forelimb and hindlimb joints in sheep. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25 (04) 297-300
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Adair III HS, Marcellin-Little DJ, Levine D. Validity and repeatability of goniometry in normal horses. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (04) 314-319
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Liljebrink Y, Bergh A. Goniometry: is it a reliable tool to monitor passive joint range of motion in horses?. Equine Vet J Suppl 2010; 42 (38) 676-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Araújo FAPD, Rahal SC, Machado MRF, Teixeira CR, Lorena SER, Barbosa L. Goniometria dos membros pélvicos de pacas (Cuniculus paca) criadas em cativeiro. Pesqui Vet Bras 2009; 29 (12) 1004-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Newton CD. Normal Joint Range of Motion in the Dog and Cat. Textbook of Small Animal Orthopedics. London, UK: Lippincott Company; 1985: 1101-1106
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Benson C, Lakey S, Smith M, Hummel-Berry K. A comparison of canine range of motion measurements between two breeds of disparate body types. [abstract] J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2004; A39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Brown EA, Dickinson PJ, Mansour T. , et al. FGF4 retrogene on CFA12 is responsible for chondrodystrophy and intervertebral disc disease in dogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017; 114 (43) 11476-11481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Parker HG, VonHoldt BM, Quignon P. , et al. An expressed fgf4 retrogene is associated with breed-defining chondrodysplasia in domestic dogs. Science 2009; 325 (5943): 995-998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bergknut N, Auriemma E, Wijsman S. , et al. Evaluation of intervertebral disk degeneration in chondrodystrophic and nonchondrodystrophic dogs by use of Pfirrmann grading of images obtained with low-field magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Vet Res 2011; 72 (07) 893-898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Forterre F, Gorgas D, Dickomeit M, Jaggy A, Lang J, Spreng D. Incidence of spinal compressive lesions in chondrodystrophic dogs with abnormal recovery after hemilaminectomy for treatment of thoracolumbar disc disease: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging study. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (02) 165-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Eigenmann JE, Amador A, Patterson DF. Insulin-like growth factor I levels in proportionate dogs, chondrodystrophic dogs and in giant dogs. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh) 1988; 118 (01) 105-108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Laflamme D. Development and validation of a body condition score system for dogs.: a clinical tool. Canine Pract 1997; 22: 10-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Petazzoni M, Jaeger G. Atlas of Clinical Goniometry and Radiographic Measurements of the Canine Pelvic Limb. 2nd edition. Milan: Merial; 2008: 96
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Conceição RT, Rahal SC, Agostinho FS, Teixeira CR, Araújo FA, Monteiro FO. Goniometria dos membros torácicos e pélvicos de ovinos em duas faixas etárias. Pesqui Vet Bras 2012; 32 (08) 812-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Magalhães MN, de Lima ACP. Noções de probabilidade e estatística. Editora da Universidade de São Paulo-SP; Brazil: 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Formenton MR, de Lima LG, Vassalo FG, Joaquim JGF, Rosseto LP, Fantoni DT. Goniometric Assessment in French Bulldogs. Front Vet Sci 2019; 6: 424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Jaegger G, Marcellin-Little DJ, Levine D. Reliability of goniometry in Labrador Retrievers. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63 (07) 979-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kirkby Shaw K, Alvarez L, Foster SA, Tomlinson JE, Shaw AJ, Pozzi A. Fundamental principles of rehabilitation and musculoskeletal tissue healing. Vet Surg 2020; 49 (01) 22-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 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
  • 43 Dennis R. Handbook of Small Animal Radiology and Ultrasound. Churchill Livingstone: Elsevier; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 44 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
  • 45 Benson C, Lakey S, Smith M, Hummel-Berry K. A comparison of canine range of motion measurements between two breeds of disparate body types: PO270. J OrthopSport Phys 2004; 34 (01) A39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 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
  • 47 Anderson KL, O'Neill DG, Brodbelt DC. , et al. Prevalence, duration and risk factors for appendicular osteoarthritis in a UK dog population under primary veterinary care. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 5641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar