Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Tibial bone angle differences in dogs prone to cruciate ligament tears
By Guénégo, L et al.·Published in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997)·2017·Clinique Vé, France·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of tibial anatomical-mechanical axis angle between predisposed dogs and dogs at low risk for cranial cruciate ligament rupture.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at the angle of the tibia (the bone in the lower leg) in dogs to see if it could help predict which dogs might be at risk for a common knee injury called cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR). They found that certain breeds, like West Highland white terriers, had a significantly different tibial angle compared to healthy dogs. The results showed that a tibial angle greater than 1.87 degrees was very effective in identifying dogs at risk for this injury. This information could help veterinarians assess and manage the risk of CCLR in dogs.
People also search for: dog knee injury risk factors · West Highland white terrier CCLR · tibial angle in dogs
Abstract
The purpose of this prospective, radiographic, descriptive study was to compare measurements of tibial anatomical-mechanical axis angle (AMA-angle), tibial plateau angle (TPA), relative tibial tuberosity width (rTTW) and Z-angle from mediolateral radiographs of the tibia between two canine breeds (72 dogs) not predisposed to cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR) and those from a consecutive series of 185 large dogs and 17 West Highland white terriers (WHWT) diagnosed with unilateral, surgically confirmed CCLR. Correlations among these measurements were determined, and levels of inter- and intra-observer variability among and within three observers for each measurement were established using Kendall's coefficient of concordance. Breed had a significant effect on AMA-angle. The median AMA-angle of the subject population of large dogs affected by CCLR was 2.80° (range 1.09°-5.21°); for the WHWT, it was 6.34° (range 5.68°-8.88°); and for the clinically normal dogs, it was 0.74° (range 0.00°-5.40°). In the CCLR group, AMA-angle and TPA were strongly correlated (r=0.745; p<0.0001). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that an AMA-angle higher than 1.87° had a sensitivity of 0.941 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.898-0.966) and a specificity of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.919-0.987) for predicting CCLR and was more accurate than TPA, rTTW and Z-angle at predicting CCLR (p<0.0001). Good inter- and intra-observer agreement was found for all measurements. The highly significant difference in AMA-angle found between clinically normal dogs and dogs with CCL injury suggests that AMA-angle magnitude may be a clinically relevant predisposing factor for the development of canine CCLR.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28720297/