Sensitivity and Specificity of a Weight Distribution Platform for the Detection of Objective Lameness and Orthopaedic Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Weight distribution and off-loading at the stance are commonly used subjective assessments during the orthopaedic examination. The clinical relevance, sensitivity and specificity of limb off-loading have not yet been established. The aim of the study was to assess off-loading on a weight distribution platform (WDP) and determine the sensitivity and specificity at various cut-off points for the detection of objective lameness (OL) and orthopaedic disease (OD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The total pressure index was used to determine OL on a pressure-sensitive walkway (PSW). Normal weight distribution on both the PSW and WDP was considered 30/30/20/20. A total pressure index standard deviation of 2 was used. The sensitivity and specificity of the WDP for the identification of OL and OD was determined at cut-off points 1 to 6 below normal weight distribution values. RESULTS: All patients in the study (n = 50) had confirmed OD. The PSW identified 36/50 (74%) patients as OL; these were deemed to be OL for sensitivity and specificity analysis of WDP data. At cut-off point 1, the WDP had the highest sensitivity for OD (84%) and OL (97%). At cut-off point 6, the WDP had the highest specificity for OD (98%) and OL (98%). The highest combination of sensitivity and specificity for both OD (1.65) and OL (1.80) was at cut-off point 2. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The WDP provided the highest combined sensitivity and specificity at cut-off point 2 below the normal value for the detection of both OL and OD.

Evaluation of splenectomy as a risk factor for gastric dilatation-volvulus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether dogs undergoing splenectomy had an increased risk of gastric dilatation-volvulus (GDV), compared with a control group of dogs undergoing enterotomy. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. ANIMALS: 219 dogs that underwent splenectomy for reasons other than splenic torsion (splenectomy group; n = 172) or enterotomy (control group; 47) without concurrent gastropexy. PROCEDURES: Medical records were reviewed for information on signalment, date of surgery, durations of surgery and anesthesia, reason for splenectomy, histopathologic findings (if applicable), whether gastropexy was performed, duration of follow-up, and date of death (if applicable). Follow-up information, including occurrence of GDV, was obtained via medical records review and a written client questionnaire. RESULTS: Reasons for splenectomy included splenic neoplasia, nonneoplastic masses, infarction, traumatic injury, and adhesions to a gossypiboma. Incidence of GDV following surgery was not significantly different between dogs of the splenectomy (14/172 [8.1 %]) and control (3/47 [6.4%]) groups. Median time to GDV for the 17 affected dogs was 352 days (range, 12 to 2,368 days) after surgery. Among dogs that underwent splenectomy, sexually intact males had a significantly higher incidence of GDV (4/16) than did castrated males and sexually intact or spayed females (10/156). Incidence of GDV among sexually intact male dogs did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results did not support a recommendation for routine use of prophylactic gastropexy in dogs at the time of splenectomy. Other patient-specific risk factors should be assessed prior to recommending this procedure.