1. Geert Verhoeven DVM, PhD, Diplomate ECVS (Europees Specialist Chirurgie Gezelschapsdieren)1,*, 2. Ruth Fortrie DVM2, 3. Bernadette Van Ryssen DVM, PhD1, 4. Frank Coopman DVM, PhD, MS3 1Europees Specialist Chirurgie Gezelschapsdieren, Ghent University, Medical Imaging and Orthopedics, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke, Belgium 2Algemene Dierenkliniek Randstad, Frans Beirenslaan 155, Borsbeek, Belgium 3University College Ghent, Department of Vet Surg January 2012 41 1 10-19 Objective To critically review the different screening systems used for canine hip dysplasia (CHD) and their impact on the prevalence of the disease. Study design Critical literature review. Methods Literature search through PubMed (November 1959–October 2011) and the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), British Veterinary Association/Kennel Club (BVA/KC), and Pennsylvania Hip Improvement Program (PennHIP) websites. Results The OFA, FCI, and BVA/KC screening methods, which use the hip-extended radiographic projection, have had relatively minor success on CHD prevalence. These screening approaches are prone to conflicting data regarding interobserver agreement. The PennHIP and Dorsolateral Subluxation (DLS) systems, both distraction methods, have not reported on prevalence but seem to be important heritable traits in genomic screening of dysplastic dogs. Conclusion A shift towards genome screening yields a promising future combating CHD, although further investigation towards fine-mapping in the search for genes, responsible for CHD, is necessary.

• Hip