30 Saber Tails Spring 2016

Petit Basset Griffon Vendéen Club of America

O

FA lists the prevalence of HD (radiographic) by 

breed on it’s website and PBGVs are listed as 97th 

out of the 173 breeds for which at least 100 evaluations 

have been completed to date.  The general trend is that 

larger dogs have more dysplasia than smaller dogs.

F

inally, the cost effectiveness of widespread screen-

ing for any condition needs to be taken into account.  

The common CERF (eye) screening is generally under 

$50 and is frequently available free at national special-

ties.  The POAG test (without the current subsidy) will 

run about $70 for fees and postage.  OFA hip exams 

without anesthesia will start at $150 and range upwards 

to more than $400 plus a $35 OFA filing fee. Consider-

ing all the dogs tested in the years since hip evaluations 

became part of PBGVCA’s CHIC requirements, 8 dogs 

with radiographic HD were identified at an approximate 

total cost to all owners of at least $40,000.  Extrapolating 

from what we do know about clinical outcomes, it seems 

likely that few of these dogs will ever exhibit clinical 

symptoms of hip dysplasia. 

I

f the CHIC program is to be an effective tool used by 

parent clubs to promote wider testing of breeding 

stock, it needs to address the health issues in the breed 

as they currently exist and to provide a mechanism for 

adjustments as these health issues change over time.  

The POAG test is definitive and predictive to the extent 

that no dogs affected with POAG should ever be pro-

duced again.  It is possible that in a few generations 

even carriers will disappear from the gene pool.  At some 

point in time, it might very well be pointless to test for 

a gene that has been effectively eliminated from the 

breed.   

I

t is useful to think of CHIC criteria as a fluid system 

that will evolve as different health issues are identified, 

targeted, and hopefully significantly minimized if not 

eliminated.  It is in this context that the Board of Direc-

tors has elected to add POAG testing and eliminate hip 

evaluations from the screening protocol.

T

his change in CHIC criteria does not imply that PB-

GVCA believes that hip screening evaluations never 

provide useful information for the owner/breeder.  Ca-

nine athletes in particular may benefit from the informa-

tion provided by hip and other orthopedic evaluations.  

Additionally, dogs with an unusually strong potential 

to affect the future of the breed (frequently used sires, 

top winning dogs in any venue) should probably be 

screened for any potential genetic issue for which a test 

whose x-rays indicated some degree of dysplasia are not 

identified publically on the OFA database.  Using the OFA 

search function to identify those dogs whose owners gave 

permission to publish the results, regardless of outcome, 

10 dogs were identified with a rating of mild hip dysplasia 

and 2 were listed as having moderate hip dysplasia.  An 

attempt was made to determine the clinical outcome for 

these 12 dogs and this was accomplished for only five 

of the listed dogs, none of which ever displayed clinical 

symptoms.  The sample size is small and incomplete but 

there is little evidence that the OFA rating system is a good 

predictor of eventual clinical HD in individual PBGVs.  

O

f perhaps greater concern is the possible unreliability 

of these ratings in predicting risk to the offspring of 

tested dogs.  Using the same OFA database, the pedi-

grees of all twelve radiographically dysplastic dogs were 

retrieved.  Five of the dogs were out of tested sires and 

dams:  one was out of two parents who tested good, four 

were from matings between one good and one fair parent.  

Four dogs were out of matings between one tested and 

one untested parent in which all of the tested parents were 

fair.  Three dogs were from untested parents most of whom 

were imported. If knowing the hip status of breeding stock 

was useful in assessing the risk of passing on hip dysplasia 

to offspring, it isn’t obvious from this casual survey.

T

he incidence of any level of HD (radiographic) in PBGVs, 

up to its inclusion as a CHIC criterion in 2007,

in the US is approximately 10% of tested dogs or less than 

2% of the total population of PBGVs registered with AKC.  

The incidence since the CHIC program was implemented 

for PBGVs is about 3% of tested dogs (perhaps less than 

0.5% of all dogs.  It is true that the picture painted by the 

OFA database is incomplete in that there is no requirement 

that owners submit negative results to OFA (unless they 

want an ‘official’ reading) and there is no requirement that 

these results be published (unless they want to receive a 

CHIC number).  It is also true that the sample size is too 

small and too spotty to make any claims about statisti-

cal significance.  Anecdotal information is just that--but 

reports of clinical hip dysplasia in PBGVs are extremely rare.

T

here is also no doubt that extensive screening for hip 

dysplasia has had a beneficial effect in those breeds 

with high levels of the condition.  These breeds are invari-

ably large breeds such as Newfoundlands, Saint Bernards 

and several retriever breeds.