# OFA or PennHip?



## bethany.cole2013 (Sep 28, 2012)

I'm just wondering, but do people prefer to see OFA certifications or PennHip certifications on the breeding dogs? I recently read an article that gave specifics as to why PennHip is better and the procedure they use gives you a much better and thorough idea as to the actual laxity of the dog's hips. Are there a lot of breeders that do PennHip? Or is OFA the general most accepted hip certification method? Would you still buy from a breeder that did PennHip certs instead of OFA certs?


----------



## northgashepherds (Feb 23, 2013)

I use OFA, which is cheaper and gives me a better idea of how the hips and elbows are. Most people seem to use OFA, but many people would still buy from a breeder using PennHip. OFA seems to be less complicated to me, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## TrickyShepherd (Aug 15, 2011)

As a purchaser.... I like to see OFA. One because of the age (2+), I don't like when xrays are done too early on the breeding pair. I like to know the dog was grown and mature and what ratings they had then. It's more universally understood in my experiences with other dog owners/breeders/trainers. I would still possibly consider with Pennhip... but, I would really need to trust the breeder and know they are trustworthy and the health of the previous litters is good.

I'm not a breeder, so I don't have an opinion on that side. When my family raised and showed golden retrievers, they were OFA'd.... though I was too young to thoroughly understand the ins and outs of what they did and why.


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

PennHIP is a better procedure and more reliable than OFA. More x-rays are done, each breed has its own set of numbers, and PennHIP is a better predictor of long term joint issues. OFA is a very inaccurate rating based on subjective readings of 3 radiologist. Of the three readings, the gets the lowest reading. In other words, if your dog is rated good by two readers and fair by the third, the dog is rated as Fair. Likewise, if the dog has two Fair ratings and one dysplasic, the dog is rated as dysplasic. PennHIP rating is based on measurements and numbers, not someone's opinion.


----------



## TrickyShepherd (Aug 15, 2011)

Doc said:


> PennHIP is a better procedure and more reliable than OFA. More x-rays are done, each breed has its own set of numbers, and PennHIP is a better predictor of long term joint issues. OFA is a very inaccurate rating based on subjective readings of 3 radiologist. Of the three readings, the gets the lowest reading. In other words, if your dog is rated good by two readers and fair by the third, the dog is rated as Fair. Likewise, if the dog has two Fair ratings and one dysplasic, the dog is rated as dysplasic. PennHIP rating is based on measurements and numbers, not someone's opinion.


Did some research on PennHIP today... it's not really what I thought, and what was explained to be previously. This is pretty much what I saw today. In those terms.... it changes my mind a little. However, I still think OFA is more recognizable and universally understood. Not many know of PennHIP... especially the average dog owner. Not that, that makes it better or worse.... just what most will recognize and use toward their decisions.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> In other words, if your dog is rated good by two readers and fair by the third, the dog is rated as Fair.


Since when (honest question)? I was always told if two radiologists said good and the third said fair, the dog was good

ETA: http://www.offa.org/hd_grades.html

Apparently what I stated was correct


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Since when (honest question)? I was always told if two radiologists said good and the third said fair, the dog was good
> 
> ETA: Orthopedic Foundation for Animals: Hip Dysplasia
> 
> Apparently what I stated was correct


I stand corrected. Thanks for the information. 
I would rather rate a dogs hips using actually measurements and numbers rather than a human eye deciding. But that is the scientist in me. IMO, the PennHIP procedure was created to address the shortcomings of the OFA process. As such, the subjectivity of the OFA is taken out and replaced by actual mathematical measurements resulting in an objective evaluation of the hips. In addition, all results of a PennHIP rating are included in their data base and used to compare your results leading to a quantifiable, objective rating. Subsequently, IMO, a much more accurate rating based on scientific measurements taking the human element out of the equation.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

They both serve a purpose of giving an outward expression of the hip status. The OFA is probably more valuable to buyers and some breeders whose primary clientele is the public....Pennhipp is more used by breeders that want a stronger long range prediction of joint laxity. For breeders radiographs are essential for breeding decisions, for owners OFA is often a sense of security for the future of their individual dog. Jmo


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

And far better is to also look at the data on not just the parents but their littermates, their parents, their parent's littermates, etc. Depth and breadth of pedigree, aka genetics.


----------



## robk (Jun 16, 2011)

OFA is easy to understand for the average pet buyer. PennHip is probably more valuable for someone wanting a detailed analysis of the hips. I really don't care which is used as long as the hips are evaluated prior to making a breeding decision.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm personally more interested in the overall hip production of the lines. To me, hips are either breedable or they are not, and even that changes depending on the actual breeding and combination of lines. If the hips are fine, I don't really need a detailed analysis and multiple views. OFA or a-stamp is fine for me. Nikon's hips were checked twice (at 7 and 24 months) by the actual person whose research the PennHip ratings are based on, so suffice to say I trust his evaluation regardless of what rating system I use.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

northgashepherds said:


> I use OFA, which is cheaper and gives me a better idea of how the hips and elbows are. Most people seem to use OFA, but many people would still buy from a breeder using PennHip. OFA seems to be less complicated to me, but that is just my opinion.


False... First film of the three in pennHIP *IS* the ofa film. You learn more from pennHIP simply because pennHIP is OFA plus two other X-rays. You also get a computational (objective) measure. PennHIP is superior to OFA, end of story. Folks don't like pennHIP bc it can expose hips that distract under load that otherwise look great on an unloaded film.


----------



## bethany.cole2013 (Sep 28, 2012)

hunterisgreat said:


> False... First film of the three in pennHIP *IS* the ofa film. You learn more from pennHIP simply because pennHIP is OFA plus two other X-rays. You also get a computational (objective) measure. PennHIP is superior to OFA, end of story. Folks don't like pennHIP bc it can expose hips that distract under load that otherwise look great on an unloaded film.



I had thought this was correct. I had been reading up on both procedures and it was my opinion that PennHip was a better route to go with when looking at how the hips truly are, because of the detailed procedure they do. True, it may be a bit more costly but when you're supposedly breeding to better the breed wouldn't you want to do a procedure that would ensure that you aren't breeding a dog with bad hips? After all, breeders aren't supposed to cut corners just because it's cheaper.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

hunterisgreat said:


> Folks don't like pennHIP bc it can expose hips that distract under load that otherwise look great on an unloaded film.


I think this statement is a bit farfetched. I don't think most people who don't use PennHip do so because they are afraid of what it will show.

There are many reasons. One being that it is much more expensive and there are far fewer vets who can do it making it unavailable in some areas. While it may provide some nice additional info, many believe not enough to make the cost and difficulty worth it. Especially not when as Lies said it's the general status of the joints that people are after and the minutia doesn't matter.

My biggest problem with PennHip is the lack of a database that displays results and is searchable. This goes to what Lisa said about the general trends within a family and the breadth of the pedigree being essential. When one can't find out the results and research those of relatives, the system looses it's value. There is far more involved than just that individual dog so a system that may provide more info on that dog, but absolutely no way to find the info on his relatives, has limited use to breeders and informed buyers.

And the of course it isn't recognized for some things like breed surveys.

If one wants a recognized and accepted rating, and the ability to research, then OFA or a-stamp or something else has to be used and PennHip would need to be in addition to those. And many don't feel that what additional info it provides on top of still needing to use one of the other systems is worth the cost. 

Nothing wrong with PennHip. In some ways it may be superior, but in other ways not. Whether it's more valuable or not is up to personal preference. But there's nothing wrong with using a different grading system either. I think it a bit absurd to jump to the conclusion that anyone not using your preferred system are falling short, or trying to hide something.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

Chris Wild said:


> My biggest problem with PennHip is the lack of a database that displays results and is searchable.


This is exactly why my club does not recognize it as an option for the required hip certification under the COE. A hip, elbow, eye or heart clearance (in my breed) is worthless if it is not in a searchable database.


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

The PennHIP database is much more accurate than the OFA database because PennHIP includes every dog that has been examined unlike OFA who only records the results if the owner approves. Entering data is optional with the OFA, it is not with PennHIP.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Yes, and considering one of the things that they track and report on is where a dog falls in terms of a percentile for it's breed, a fully complete database is important.
But when the database is not searchable to others and is essentially closed so that claims can't be verified and families can't be tracked, it is a database with no value beyond giving a percentile. I think if they were to provide a means for people to access the database via a website like OFA has, or even just publish the results on CD like the SV does, they would become much more valuable and popular.

Oh, and OFA records all results. They only publish negative results if the owner gives permission. But they have the results, just unpublished. PennHip publishes nothing. I really wish they would.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

I agree with Chris. While I personally feel PennHip may very well be a better measure of what the hips are, the lack of searchable database is a HUGE problem for me. I want people to be able to search a database and go "Oh, hey, look at that!"

Not at all possible with PennHip. I'm not going to pay all that extra money for PennHip when I can't even search for my results


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

Jackie
You get a nice print out of your results if you PennHIP. Database or not, it is a much better procedure of determining the status of hips than OFA - period. I hate to think the number of dogs and the reduction in genetic diversity has been eliminated due to a poor OFA reading. The OFA process is full of flaws yet many people see it as the Gospel. Sad, sad indeed.
I've seen dogs that barely pass OFA due to poor position, a bad read, sedation but score in the upper 10% on PennHIPP. How does the OFA score a dog with one very good hip and one marginal hip? And why, if HD is genetic, are so many "HD" OFA dogs only exhibit one bad hip?
SHOW ME THE NUMBERS. LOL


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Yeah, *I* get a nice printout, but it's not searchable. That's a real problem. Even if people don't want it to be, it really is :-/


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

Chris Wild said:


> Yes, and considering one of the things that they track and report on is where a dog falls in terms of a percentile for it's breed, a fully complete database is important.
> But when the database is not searchable to others and is essentially closed so that claims can't be verified and families can't be tracked, it is a database with no value beyond giving a percentile. I think if they were to provide a means for people to access the database via a website like OFA has, or even just publish the results on CD like the SV does, they would become much more valuable and popular.
> 
> Oh, and OFA records all results. They only publish negative results if the owner gives permission. But they have the results, just unpublished. PennHip publishes nothing. I really wish they would.


Are the bad/unpublished OFA results searchable in their database?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Nope. They require the owner to sign to release poor results


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

What does OFA cost you guys?? PennHIPP costs me about ~$250 per dog

I think in time the database issue will not be an issue any longer and we will see PennHIPP replace OFA. There is not question that it is not systematically more accurate, simply a matter of gathering enough data.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

At U of Penn, from where it originated, it costs about 300 per dog.....it is more comprehensive than OFA in my opinion....but still it is only a tool, just like a wrench which is pretty useless in my hands.


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

So one so called advantage of OFA is a searchable database that only reports the released data from the owner? Does that mean there are no "dysplasic" dogs listed unless their owner releases the results? In other words, OFA searchable database shows you all the good dogs because who in their right mind is going to publish bad results? I really don't see any advantage if this is the case.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

It is still better than nothing. First because it makes it possible to verify the results on an individual dog through independent means. People researching do not have to rely on being able to get paper copies of certificates, which in this day and age can be faked. If the dog is really OFA Good as the breeder/owner/seller claims, that can be verified.

Second, many negative results are published. But of course many, probably most, are not. That still provides important information, or at the very least highlights where more information needs to be gathered. One can easily find out how many dogs were in a particular litter via info available on the AKC website. Then go look it up on OFA and see what is there in terms of what percentage of the litter is certified. Yes, it may only show good results and there's no way to know if the missing dogs are missing because they failed or because they just weren't x-rayed. So some guess work is still involved, and perhaps some leg work to find out why the dogs not listed aren't listed. But at least someone researching has a starting place and can get some info, and some clues into what other info they need to gather. No info at all is available from PennHip so there isn't even a place to start with regard to researching hips.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

We pay about $150 for OFA. Around here PennHip will cost more than 3 times that much.

I do think in terms of measuring individual hips, that PennHip is supperior. And if they fixed that database issue would probably leave OFA in the dust. Especially if it became more readily available and affordable.

But to me as a breeder, an individual dog's hip score is the smallest piece of the HD puzzle. The trends within the lines.. the ancestors as well as siblings, half siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, and of course direct offspring.. are the most important aspect and the one that provides the most useful tool for reducing incidence of HD and the severity of cases that do occur. So for me, a database of some sort is key and a system that offers absolutely nothing in that regard is of very limited value. I can look at the x-rays myself and know whether or not the dog has breedable hips. I don't need some other organization to tell me that. The certification process is more to prove it to others so they don't have to take my word for it, and also to record data for other people researching. That data is one of the most important aspects of certification organizations, and PennHip falls short there.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Selfishly I don't really care about the overall accuracy of the database. My dogs either have workable, breedable hips or they don't. So far, it's been apparent even to me as a "lay person" (not a vet or orthopedist or radiologist) just looking at the x-rays. I don't personally care whether it's fair or excellent but I've had my dogs OFA'd or a-stamped because I can give a nod to the breeder and the dogs' lines. If the dogs had HD I would probably not submit them, not because it's some huge conspiracy but because why spend the money? When I have x-rays done I'm mostly looking for that person's opinion. I already know what they are going to be rated before they're sent off. If the vet can't tell me then why am I paying them money to take the x-rays? If I need a specialist then I use a specialist. I don't think it should take a full Pennhip analysis just to know whether or not your dog has HD.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

I have not had a chance to read the other comments. However I'll give a broad opinion based on my own experience/discussion with the board certified orthopedic surgeons I work with (we have actually been talking about OFA vs PennHIP a lot since I just got a new pup).

There is a rather large difference between the two. OFA looks at actual hip sockets, anatomical structure. PennHip looks at joint laxity, how much the femur actually moves in and out of the socket, etc... OFA is going to be kind of a set obvious, even if there is some poor reading/grading done. Either the anatomical structure of the acetabulum or femoral head is off, or it is not. Medium - severe cases are going to be obvious. However, increased laxity of a hip, although it may PREDISPOSE the joint to osteoarthritis, does not always guarantee that there will BE osteoarthritis. It just signifies an increased chance.

Recent study in the Journal of Veterinary Medicine found that many pets with normal OFA scores had some increased laxity in their hips and marginal scores on PennHip. This can signify that perhaps OFA alone is not always the answer for attempting to decrease rates of HD in a breeding program. 

Our surgical resident at the clinic I work at is working on getting her certification so she can submit to Pennhip. She likes Pennhip better, she feels it gives a much better view. However, our board certified surgeon/orthopedic specialist prefers OFA. His opinion is that PennHip is a MAYBE. Even with increased laxity, doesn't mean there WILL be HD. And especially with a proper diet, supplement, maintaining a good lifelong weight, etc, there are steps that can be taken to decrease those chances as much as possible.

Since I have a surgical team readily available, I will be doing both on Berlin. It will be interesting to see how they compare. I will say that Zeke was just diagnosed with mild hip dysplasia at 6 years of age. Even with very mild joint changes, very little osteoarthritis, and hips that WEREN'T straight, it was still a fairly obvious and easy diagnosis.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Now that I've read the other answers, I can comment. Personally I would agree on doing BOTH methods, and feel that BOTH tests could give the best overall understanding. Although PennHip does an extended view to measure existing osteoarthritis, I do not believe it is as measured and evaluated as OFA for actually change in the acetabulum and/or femoral head. Unlike OFA though, PennHip measures laxity under compression and can reveal other predispositions to osteoarthritis. 

I don't think you can fairly say it IS better, end of discussion. We joke in the field that HD is the most argued about topic amongst orthopedic surgeons. As I pointed out, we have a board certified orthopedic surgeon that does not personally feel it is "better", for valid reasons. 

In my experience many breeders do not gurantee against PennHip, only OFA. I think much of this is because it's "newer" and therefor not as "known".


----------



## EastGSD (Jul 8, 2001)

If I were to ever breed GSDs again I would PennHip. Database not searchable? I remember before the Internet existed and before the OFA had that online database, no offense to anyone but that's a silly reason to choose the OFA. The point is to be making strides to improve hips in the breed. Unfortunately too many dogs were still being produced out of OFA or A stamp lines. This is where the research and establishment of the PennHip came from. People chose their method and that's fine! Only thing that usually gets under my skin in this topic is people criticizing something they do not understand as used to happen a few years ago. I'm glad to see that is not prevalent anymore, on this thread anyway lol. 

Does anyone know the current standing DI for the GSD?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

The vet who has done the 2 year x-rays for my GSDs up until this point is the person whose research Pennhip is based on, so I trust his evaluation above and beyond any/either of the rating systems since he had a hand in creating both. Unfortunately he is no longer able to take x-rays so I will have to research another person for my next dog.


----------



## gsdw/me (May 17, 2011)

hunterisgreat said:


> False... First film of the three in pennHIP *IS* the ofa film. You learn more from pennHIP simply because pennHIP is OFA plus two other X-rays. You also get a computational (objective) measure. PennHIP is superior to OFA, end of story. Folks don't like pennHIP bc it can expose hips that distract under load that otherwise look great on an unloaded film.


I agree....I did Penn hip on Audi and was told I could use one of the xrays for an OFA prelim (Audi was 14 mos). I did not do that but did use same xrays to send to the SV for his A stamp.

I chose to use Penn Hip after doing some research into the matter knowing I would also be submitting the xrays to the SV. I like the fact that they are based on the passive hip laxity ( or DI distraction index) In relation to a cross section of a breed specific animal in this case the German Shepherd. In Audi's cross section there were 9,126. Dogs ( German Shepherds) . I know this means some numbers can change in the future but, adjustments are made for that. This is just some of the reasons I went with Penn Hip. It was expensive ..especially since I also had to pay for the A stamp (my choice). It is not as readily available in some areas and requires the vet to have a special certification to do it and obviously it is not as well known as OFA...that being said I will probably (if I am feeling rich at the time ; ) ) do the same thing with Taschka.


----------



## gsdw/me (May 17, 2011)

EastGSD said:


> If I were to ever breed GSDs again I would PennHip. Database not searchable? I remember before the Internet existed and before the OFA had that online database, no offense to anyone but that's a silly reason to choose the OFA. The point is to be making strides to improve hips in the breed. Unfortunately too many dogs were still being produced out of OFA or A stamp lines. This is where the research and establishment of the PennHip came from. People chose their method and that's fine! Only thing that usually gets under my skin in this topic is people criticizing something they do not understand as used to happen a few years ago. I'm glad to see that is not prevalent anymore, on this thread anyway lol.
> 
> Does anyone know the current standing DI for the GSD?
> 
> ...


At the time I did Audi it was .30 but that was 2010.. I didn't look but maybe it will say on the website PennHIP Home


----------



## gsdw/me (May 17, 2011)

EastGSD said:


> If I were to ever breed GSDs again I would PennHip. Database not searchable? I remember before the Internet existed and before the OFA had that online database, no offense to anyone but that's a silly reason to choose the OFA. The point is to be making strides to improve hips in the breed. Unfortunately too many dogs were still being produced out of OFA or A stamp lines. This is where the research and establishment of the PennHip came from. People chose their method and that's fine! Only thing that usually gets under my skin in this topic is people criticizing something they do not understand as used to happen a few years ago. I'm glad to see that is not prevalent anymore, on this thread anyway lol.
> 
> Does anyone know the current standing DI for the GSD?
> 
> ...


At the time I did Audi the median DI was .41 but that was 2010.. I didn't

look but maybe it will say on the website PennHIP Home


----------



## gsdw/me (May 17, 2011)

Sorry the second post is right I tried to edit but couldn't...my apologies.


----------



## harmony (May 30, 2002)

My personal dogs have had a prelim at that young age


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

I will do both on my puppy. I personally think that PennHIP gives a better idea of over all hips than OFA. 

OFA is objective. PennHIP us subjective. I know instances if the same radiographs being sent to OFA and getting different results. 

However, the buying public is more attuned to OFA. So that's what they ask about. If and when I decide my boy is a breeding candidate. I want PennHIP results. I think they are better 

Though I am not a breeder, if u had a dog that OFAd "fair" and that is all I had. I would not breed. But what if they PennHIPed .19? That tells me they are a good breeding prospect. 

In the end it is information. We breed dogs, not hip ratings. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------

