Journal of Applied Biosciences 217: 24070 – 24086
ISSN 1997-5902
Contribution of radiography to the diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders in dogs at the Veterinary Center of the Lubumbashi Zoo
BINEMO KANYAMA Jean Claude, LENGE MUSHIYA NGOI Moise, LUKAMBA SOMWE Delphin, MALANGU BINEMO Noëlla, BINEMO MADI CHADI MADI Clément
Lubumbashi Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lubumbashi, BP 1825, Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Corresponding author email: drbinemofils@gmail.com
Submitted 14/1/2026, Published online on 28/02/2026 in the https://www.m.elewa.org/journals/journal-of-applied-biosciences-about-jab/ https://doi.org/10.35759/JABs.217.4
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative contribution of digital radiography to the diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders in dogs at the Veterinary Center of the Lubumbashi Zoological Garden, with a view to improving the quality of canine medical care in Lubumbashi.
Methodology and Results: A prospective and retrospective study was conducted on radiographic examinations performed on animals presented for consultation. Data were collected from clinical records, registers and archived radiographs. A total of 202 radiographs were analyzed, including 103 (50.9%) concerning dogs. Most examinations (71.8%) were requested by attending veterinarians. Of the 202 radiographs, 197 (97.5%) were compliant, and 137 (69.5%) provided diagnostic information, demonstrating the effectiveness of digital image development. Dogs over 24 months of age and males were the most represented. Various local and exotic breeds were involved, with crossbreeds and Boer Boël being among the most frequently radiographed. The girdle and pelvic limbs (55.3%) were the most examined anatomical regions, particularly the pelvis and thigh, followed by the girdle and thoracic limbs (34.2%). The lumbar and sacral regions were the most affected portions of the spine. Radiographic findings included multiple pelvic fractures, femoral fractures, tibia-fibula fractures, vertebral fractures, hip dysplasia, and osteosarcoma.
Conclusion and Application of Results: Digital radiography proved to be an essential diagnostic tool in the evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders in dogs. It significantly improved image quality and diagnostic accuracy while reducing non-diagnostic examinations. Its wider implementation in veterinary practice in Lubumbashi would enhance early detection of lesions, guide appropriate therapeutic decisions, and ultimately improve canine health management. Clinical symptoms represented only by lameness and local swellings often call for reservations when establishing a precise diagnosis. However, an accurate diagnosis is not always possible with the elements of clinical diagnosis at the disposal of the veterinarian. In view of these limitations, there is a need to resort to the veterinary laboratory to make a definitive diagnosis. X-ray is a complementary examination frequently performed for all types of consultation (musculoskeletal, cardiology, digestive, respiratory, urinary pathology, reproductive system,).
INTRODUCTION
The dog has an important place in society; providing companionship, security and leisure in human life. Due to its socio-economic importance, its health is a major concern in society. The quality of care the dog enjoys must be of great importance due to its proximity to humans. Thrall and Robertson, (2022). stated that dogs, like any other animals, have the right to life, respect, health care and protection. This implies that it is likely to develop several pathologies (Burk and Feeney, 2021). In canine clinics, veterinary practitioners encounter fractures on a daily basis, mainly due to traffic accidents (Dennis et al. 2021). According to Fossum (2022), the precise diagnosis of limb lesions has always been challenging. Clinical symptoms represented only by lameness and local swellings often call for reservations when establishing a precise diagnosis, instrument of an adequate therapy. However, an accurate diagnosis is not always possible with the elements of clinical diagnosis at the disposal of the veterinarian. In view of these limitations with catastrophic consequences, there is a need to resort to the veterinary laboratory (or other competent centres) to make a definitive diagnosis. Kinns (2020) stipulate that an x-ray is a complementary examination frequently performed for all types of consultation (musculoskeletal, cardiology, digestive, respiratory, urinary pathology, reproductive system,.) but a new radiological scanner or digital development offer the possibility of obtaining high quality images in short period of time than when developing a film image. The aforementioned author adds, affirming that in recent years digital development has revealed itself to be a precise diagnostic tool in the care of animals. According to Bennett and May (2023), the use of imaging equipment is dramatic in Africa. Devices are scarce and often out of service. Accessibility to this tool is not at all easy given the high cost of exams. And yet, para-clinical examinations have their place of choice in the practice of modern veterinary medicine despite their non-existence among Congolese veterinarians. The latter are not always motivated to use it for an adequate diagnosis leading to a judicious treatment ( Gemmill, 2021). From the above, the problem of this study revolves around two questions below:
– Is radiography really useful in the practice of the veterinary profession in Lubumbashi?
– What is the merit of digital development in the diagnosis of lesions of the musculoskeletal system in canine clinics?
The general objective of this study is to improve the quality of care provided to dogs in the city of Lubumbashi.
Specifically, this work aims to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative contributions of digital development to the diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders in dogs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The veterinary centre is located within the Lubumbashi Zoological Garden which is situated at No 1 at the corner of Boulevard Karmayloa and Route Kipushi, in the Lido-Golf district in the commune of Lubumbashi, Haut-Katanga Province, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Lubumbashi zoo extends over an area of 30 ha; it is limited to the East by Boulevard Kamanyola, to the West by Avenue Ngongo Lutete, to the North by Avenue Ruwe and to the South by Kipushi Road.
GPS coordinates:
- Latitude : S 11°40’16.572²
- Longitude : E 27°28’32.679²
Animals: This research is the product of an investigation on the lesions of the musculoskeletal system in the following breeds of canine species “Dogs”: Great Dane, German Shepherd, Belgian Shepherd, Bichon, Boer Boël, Boston terrier, Bull dog, American Bully, Chihuahua, Cocker Spaniel, Collie, Crossbreed, Fox Terrier, Jack Russell, Labrador, Mini Loulou, Pit bull, Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Dachshund and York shire.
Methods: The animals were brought for consultation by their respective owners, people familiar with them or attending veterinarian. Information on patient data identification and anamnesis were electronically captured (clinical form). Animals were restrained for general clinical examination and clinical data collection. Any complaint or request from the owner, any suspicion, any symptom, any injury related to the musculoskeletal system resorted to the radiographic examination for a confirmation diagnosis. The same was true during operations involving the musculoskeletal system. The radiographs done on the musculoskeletal system in dogs were selected then distributed according to gender, age, conformity criterion and parts of the musculoskeletal system, and finally analysed with a view to establishing the radiographic diagnosis. Animals were restrained, rationally exposed to X-rays for radiographs. Films were thereafter developed by digital method and reading was done on the computer. During the bombardment, protective devices against the biological effects of X-rays were rigorously applied. In order to cover the entire period of our study, data shortage was compensated by the retrospective method done from the archives (registers and photographs).
RESULTS
The data relate to the number and distribution of radiographs performed according to species, according to the conformity of radiographs and according to the presence or lack of diagnostic information are presented in the tables 1,2 and 3 below. The data from this study also relate to the number and distribution of x-rays of dogs according to age categories, gender, breeds, parts of the musculoskeletal system, regions of each of these.
Number and distribution of x-rays: Data relating to the number and distribution of radiographs taken according to species, according to the conformity of the images and according to the presence or absence of diagnostic information, presented successively in tables 1, 2 and 3. The canine species are included in the tables numbered 4 to 19.
Table 1: Number of X-rays according to reasons and animal species (n=202).
| Motif | Cat | Dog | Chimpanzee | Horse | Total |
| ni % | ni % | n % | ni % | ni % | |
| Request from owners | 7 3.5 | 29 14.4 | 10 5.0 | 11 5.4 | 57 28.2 |
| Request from treating veterinarians | 12 5.9 | 74 36.6 | 42 20.8 | 17 8.4 | 145 71.8 |
| Total | 19 9.4 | 103 51.0 | 52 25.7 | 28 13.9 | 202 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Observations from this table indicate that most of x-rays from different animal species were a recommendation from attending veterinarians than the request from the owners.
Table 2: Number of compliant and non-compliant radiographs according to animal species (n=202).
| Radiographies | Cat | Dog | Chimpanzee | Horse | Total |
| ni % | ni % | n % | ni % | ni % | |
| Non-compliant | 0 0.0 | 4 2.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 0.4 | 5 2.5 |
| Compliant | 19 9.4 | 99 49.0 | 52 25.7 | 27 13.3 | 197 97.5 |
| Total | 19 9.4 | 103 51.0 | 52 25.7 | 28 13.7 | 202 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency
Table no2 shows that the number of compliant radiographs is greater than that of non-compliant radiographs in all animal species.
Table 3: Number of radiographs with or lacking diagnostic information according to animal species (n=197).
| Lesions | Cat | Dog | Chimpanzee | Horse | total |
| ni % | ni % | n % | ni % | ni % | |
| Information (+) | 17 8.6 | 43 21.8 | 50 25.4 | 27 13.7 | 137 69.5 |
| Information (-) | 2 1.0 | 56 56.5 | 2 1.0 | 0 0.0 | 60 30.5 |
| Total | 19 9.6 | 99 50.2 | 52 26.4 | 27 13.7 | 197 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
The table above reveals that 69.5% of radiographic images from various animal species had diagnostic information, excluding canine species.
Distribution of x-rays from dogs.
Table 4: Distribution of X-rays from dogs according to age and gender (n=103).
| Catégories d’âge | Males | Females | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| From 1 to 6 moths | 17 16.5 | 6 5.8 | 23 22.3 |
| From 7 to 24 moths | 19 18.4 | 11 10.7 | 30 29.1 |
| Above 24 moths | 28 27.1 | 22 21.3 | 50 48.5 |
| Total | 64 62.1 | 39 37.9 | 103 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Dogs aged above 24 months from both genders were the most x-rayed.
Table 5: Distribution of X-rays by breed and gender (n=103).
| Breed | Males | Females | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| German Shepherd | 7 6.8 | 2 1.9 | 9 8.7 |
| Belgian Shepherd | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Bichon | 3 2.9 | 3 2.9 | 6 5.8 |
| Boer Boël | 8 7.8 | 5 4.9 | 13 12.6 |
| Boston terrier | 2 1.9 | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 |
| American Bully | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 |
| Bull dog | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 2 1.9 |
| Chihuahua | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 2 1.9 |
| Cocker | 0 0.0 | 3 2.9 | 3 2.9 |
| Collie | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Crossbreeds | 15 14.6 | 8 7.8 | 23 22.3 |
| German Mastiff | 3 2.9 | 1 1.0 | 4 3.9 |
| Fox terrier | 1 1.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 |
| Jack Russel | 5 4.9 | 2 1.9 | 7 6.8 |
| Labrador | 4 3.9 | 2 1.9 | 6 5.8 |
| Mini loulou | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 |
| Pit bull | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Ridgeback | 2 1.9 | 1 1.0 | 3 2.9 |
| Rottweiler | 3 2.9 | 4 3.9 | 7 6.8 |
| Teckel | 2 1.9 | 3 2.9 | 5 4.9 |
| Yorkshire | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 2 1.9 |
| Total | 58 56.3 | 45 43.7 | 103 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
According to the table above, among the dogs subjected to x-rays there were both genders and various local and exotic breeds.
Table 6: Distribution of X-rays according to breed and age group (n=103).
| Breeds | From 0 to 6 moths | From 7 to 24 moths | Above 24 moths | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Berge allemand | 2 1.9 | 3 2.9 | 4 3.9 | 9 8.7 |
| Berger belge | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Bichon | 3 2.9 | 2 1.9 | 1 1.0 | 6 5.8 |
| Boer Boël | 5 4.9 | 4 3.9 | 4 4.9 | 13 12.6 |
| Boston terrier | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 2 1.9 |
| American Bully | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 |
| Bull dog | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Chihuahua | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Cocker | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 3 2.9 | 3 2.3 |
| Collie | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 2 1.9 |
| Crossbreeds | 5 4.9 | 10 9.7 | 8 7.8 | 23 22.3 |
| German Mastiff | 2 1.9 | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 4 3.9 |
| Fox terrier | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 |
| Jack Russel | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 6 5.8 | 7 6.8 |
| Labrador | 1 1.0 | 2 1.9 | 3 2.9 | 6 5.8 |
| Mini loulou | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 |
| Pet bull | 0 0.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Ridgeback | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 3 2.9 |
| Rottweiler | 1 1.0 | 0 0.0 | 6 5.8 | 7 6.8 |
| Teckel | 1 1.0 | 1 1.0 | 3 2.9 | 5 4.9 |
| Yorkshire | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 | 0 0.0 | 2 1.9 |
| Total | 21 20.4 | 34 33.0 | 48 46.6 | 103 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Data from table no6 reveals that dogs aged over 6 months are associated with various crossbreeds (22.3%) followed by those belonging to the Boer Boël breed (12.6%).
Table 7: Distribution of dog X-rays according to parts of the musculoskeletal system and according to sexes (n=76).
| Parts | Males | Females | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Spine | 2 2.6 | 6 7.9 | 8 10.5 |
| Girdle and thoracic limbs | 15 14.6 | 11 14.5 | 26 34.2 |
| Girdle and pelvic limbs | 23 30.3 | 19 25.0 | 42 55.3 |
| Total | 40 47.5 | 36 47.4 | 76 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
According to the gender, Table no7 displays that males were the most affected among the x-rays animals.
Table 8: Distribution of dog X-rays according to parts of the musculoskeletal system and according to age groups (n=76).
| Parts | From 0 to 6 moths | From 7 to 24 moths | Above 24 moths | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Spine | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 7 9.2 | 8 10.5 |
| Girdle and thoracic limbs | 1 1.3 | 10 13.1 | 15 19.7 | 26 34.2 |
| Girdle and pelvic limbs | 13 17.1 | 17 22.4 | 12 15.8 | 42 55.3 |
| Total | 14 18.4 | 28 36.8 | 34 44.7 | 76 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Observations from table no8 portray dogs above 2 years and those from 7 months to 24 months age group as the most x-rayed.
Tableau 9: Distribution of dog X-rays according to parts of the musculoskeletal system and according to the breed (n=76).
| Breeds | Spine | Girdle and thoracic limbs | Girdle and pelvic limbs | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Berge allemand | 0 0.0 | 2 2.6 | 5 6.6 | 7 9.2 |
| Berger belge | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Bichon | 1 1.3 | 1 1.3 | 5 6.6 | 7 9.2 |
| Boer Boël | 0 0.0 | 3 4.0 | 9 11.8 | 12 15.7 |
| Boston terrier | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 |
| American Bully | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Bull dog | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Chihuahua | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Cocker | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Collie | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 |
| Croisée | 5 6.6 | 13 17.1 | 5 6.6 | 23 30.2 |
| German Mastiff | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 4 5.3 | 4 5.3 |
| Fox terrier | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 1 1.3 |
| Jack Russel | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 65 6.6 | 6 7.9 |
| Labrador | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 1 1.3 |
| Mini loulou | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 |
| Pit bull | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 1 1.3 |
| Ridgeback | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 |
| Rottweiler | 0 0.0 | 2 2.6 | 1 1.3 | 3 3.9 |
| Teckel | 2 2.6 | 0 0.0 | 4 5.3 | 6 7.9 |
| Yorkshire | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 1.3 | 1 1.3 |
| Total | 8 10.5 | 26 34.2 | 42 55.3 | 76 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Observations from this table reveals that dogs aged over 6 months belonging to the various crossbreeds (30.2%) followed by those belonging to the Boer Boël breed (15.7%) were the most x-rayed.
Table 10: Distribution dog X-rays according to portions of the spinal column and according
to gender (n= 8).
| Portions | Males | Females | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Cervical | 1 12.5 | 1 12.5 | 2 25.0 |
| Thoracic | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Lumbar | 1 12.5 | 2 25.0 | 3 37.5 |
| Sacrum | 1 12.5 | 2 25.0 | 3 37.5 |
| Coccyx | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Total | 3 37.5 | 5 62.5 | 8 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
From the table above, x-rays performed on different portions of the spine were more done on female individuals.
Table 11: Distribution of dog X-rays according to portions of the spinal column and according to age groups (n= 8).
| Portions | From 0 to 6 moths | From 7 to 24 moths | Above 24 moths | Total |
| n % | ni % | ni % | n % | |
| Cervical | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 25.0 | 2 25.0 |
| Thoracic | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Lumbar | 0 0.0 | 1 12.5 | 2 25.0 | 3 37.5 |
| Sacrum | 0 0.0 | 1 12.5 | 2 25.0 | 3 37.5 |
| Coccyx | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Total | 0 0.0 | 2 25.0 | 6 75.0 | 8 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Data from table no10 indicate that the number of x-rays done according to age group, were done on dogs over 2 years of age.
Table 12: Distribution of dog X-rays according to spine portions and breed (n= 8).
| Breeds | Cervical | Thoracic | Lumbar | Sacrum | Coccyx | Total | ||
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | |||
| Germa Shepherd | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Belgium Shepherd | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Bichon | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 12.5 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 12.5 | ||
| Boer Boël | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Boston terrier | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| American Bully | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Bull dog | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Chihuahua | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Cocker | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Collie | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Crossed breeds | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 25.0 | 3 37.5 | 0 0.0 | 5 62.5 | ||
| German Mastiff | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Fox terrier | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Jack Russel | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Labrador | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Mini loulou | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Pet bull | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Ridgeback | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Rottweiler | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Teckel | 2 25.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 25.0 | ||
| Yorkshire | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | ||
| Total | 2 25.0 | 0 0.0 | 3 37.5 | 3 37.5 | 0 0.0 | 8 100 | ||
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
From observations on table no12 more requests of radiography were made on crossbreeds.
Table 13: Distribution of dog X-rays done on the girdle and thoracic limbs according to limb region and gender (n=26)
| Regions | Males | Females | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Scapula | 8 30.8 | 4 15.4 | 12 46.1 |
| Forearm | 1 3.8 | 1 3.8 | 2 7.7 |
| Elbow | 2 7.7 | 1 3.8 | 3 11.5 |
| Forearm | 3 11.5 | 4 15.4 | 7 26.9 |
| Carpus | 1 3.8 | 1 3.8 | 2 7.7 |
| Cannon | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Phalange | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Total | 15 57.7 | 11 42.3 | 26 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Table no13 demonstrates that the number of x-rays taken according to gender, males were the most affected and much more for the scapular region.
Table 14: Distribution of dog X-rays on the girdle and thoracic limbs according to regions and according to age groups. (n=26).
| Portions | From 0 to 6 moths | From 7 to 24 moths | Above 24 mois | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Scapula | 0 0.0 | 3 11.5 | 9 34.6 | 12 46.1 |
| Bras | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | 1 3.8 | 2 7.7 |
| Elbow | 1 3.8 | 1 3.8 | 1 3.8 | 3 11.5 |
| Forearm | 1 3.8 | 2 7.7 | 4 15.4 | 7 26.9 |
| Carpus | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 7.7 | 2 7.7 |
| Canon | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Phalange | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Total | 2 7.7 | 7 26.9 | 17 65.4 | 26 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Table no14 reveals that the number of x-rays done on different age groups put individuals above 2 years old as the most affected especially on the shoulder.
Table 15: Distribution of dog X-rays on the girdle and thoracic limbs according to region and breed. (n=26)
| Breeds | Scapula | Bras | Elbow | Forearm | Carpus | Cannon | Phalange | Total | |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ||
| German Shepherd | 2 7.7 | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 3 11.5 | |
| Blgium Shepherd | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | |
| Bichon | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | |
| Boer boel | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | |
| Boston terrier | 2 7.7 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 7.7 | |
| Bouly | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Bull dog | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Chihuahua | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Cocker | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Collie | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | |
| Crossbreeds | 5 19.2 | 1 3.8 | 2 7.7 | 4 15.4 | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 13 50 | |
| German Mastiff | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Fox terrier | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Jack rusel | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | |
| Labrador | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Mini loulou | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | |
| Pet bull | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Ridgeback | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Rott weiller | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 3.8 | 1 3.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 7.7 | |
| Teckel | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| York shire | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Total | 12 46. | 2 7.7 | 3 11.5 | 7 26.9 | 2 7.7 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 26 100 | |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Data displayed on table no 15 show that the forearm region was more involved in X-ray regardless of the race.
Table 16: Distribution of dog X-rays on the girdle and pelvic limbs according to regions and sexes. (n=42)
| Regions | Males | Females | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Pelvis | 3 7.1 | 19 45.2 | 22 52.3 |
| Thigh | 4 9.5 | 5 11.9 | 9 21.4 |
| Stifle | 7 16.7 | 4 9.5 | 11 26.1 |
| Hock | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Cannon | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Phalange | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Total | 14 33.3 | 28 66.7 | 42 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
This table shows that the number of x-rays taken in relation to the sexes according to the regions of the pelvic girdle and the hind limbs, females were the most listed.
Table 17: Distribution of dog X-rays on the girdle and pelvic limbs according to regions and age groups. (n=42)
| Regions | From 0 to 6 months | From 7 to 24 months | Above 24 moths | Total |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | |
| Pelvis | 12 28.6 | 4 9.5 | 6 14.3 | 22 52.3 |
| Thigh | 3 7.1 | 5 11.9 | 1 2.4 | 9 21.4 |
| Stifle | 1 2.4 | 6 14.3 | 4 9.5 | 11 26.1 |
| Hock | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Canon | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Phalange | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 |
| Total | 16 38.1 | 15 35.7 | 11 26.1 | 42 100 |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
According to the results in table no17 dogs between 0 to 6 months followed by those between 7 to 2 years were the most X-rayed.
Table 18: Distribution of dog X-rays on the girdle and pelvic limbs according to region and breeds. (n=42)
| Breeds | Pelvis | Thigh | stifle | Hock | Cannon | Phalange | Total | |
| ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ni % | ||
| German Shepherd | 3 7.1 | 2 4.8 | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 6 14.3 | |
| Belgium Shepgerd | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | |
| Bichon | 5 11.9 | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 6 14.3 | |
| Boer Boël | 2 4.8 | 1 2.4 | 5 11.9 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 8 19.0 | |
| Boston terrier | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| American Bully | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Bull dog | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Chihuahua | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Cocker | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Collie | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | |
| Crossbeed | 5 19.9 | 2 4.8 | 4 9.5 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 11 34.2 | |
| German Mastiff | 2 4.8 | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 3 7.1 | |
| Fox terrier | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | |
| Jack Russel | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | |
| Labrador | 1 2.4 | 0 .0,0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | |
| Mini loulou | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Pit bull | 1 2.4 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 1 2.4 | |
| Ridgeback | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Rottweiler | 0 0.0 | 2 4.8 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 2 4.8 | |
| Teckel | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Yorkshire | 0 00 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | |
| Total | 22 52.4 | 9 21.4 | 11 26.2 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 0 0.0 | 42 100 | |
Legend: ni = absolute frequency, % = relative frequency.
Indications in table no19 table show that the pelvic region was the most x-rayed the in all breeds.
Radio-diagnosed lesions of the musculoskeletal system: In addition, the various lesions radio diagnosed on the different constituent parts of the musculoskeletal system in dogs are presented in tables 20, 21 and 22 below, supplemented by the corresponding radiographic images.
Table 19: Distribution of radio lesions on different spine portions.
| Portions | Lesions | Number | Observations |
| ni % | |||
| Cervical | Fracture of a cervical vertebra | 2 25.0 | Vertebral body fracture (C2 et C3) |
| Thoracic | None | 0 0.0 | |
| Lumbar | Fracture of a lumbar vertebra | 3 37.5 | Vertebral body fracture (L2 et L3) |
| Sacrum | Fractures | 3 37.5 | Anterior and posterior fractures et |
| Coccyx | None | 0 0.0 | |
| TOTAL | 8 100 |
Legend: ni= absolute frequency, %= relative frequency, C2= 2ȇ cervical vertebra, C3= 3rd cervical vertebra, L2= 2nd lumbar vertebra and L3= 3rd lumbar vertebra.
Observations from table no19 show fractures to be located on lumbar and sacral portions of the spine
Table 20: Distribution of radio lesions localised on the girdle and thoracic limbs in dogs.
| Regions | Lesions | Number | Observations |
| ni % | |||
| Scapula | 0 0.0 | ||
| Humerus
|
Ostéoporose de l’humérus
Humeral Fracture
|
1 8.3
1 8.3 |
Dégénérative process of the proximal end of the bone
Diaphyseal fracture of the bone |
| Elbow
|
Olecranon fracture | 2 16.7 | Fracture of the proximal part of radius |
| Radius/Ulna
|
Fractures of radius and ulna
Osteosarcoma of radius |
7 58.4
1 8.3 |
Most in the distal part of the two bones
Proliferation of bone tissue around the distal part of the bone |
| Carpus | None | 0 0.0 | |
| Front pastern/carpals | None | 0 0.0 | |
| TOTAL | 12 100 |
Legend: ni=absolute frequency, %=relative frequency
The distribution of radio diagnosed lesions in dogs on the girdle and thoracic limbs described in table no20 shows the forearm region as the most affected area.
Table 21: Distribution of radio lesions diagnosed at the level of the girdle and pelvic limbs in dogs
| Regions | Lesions | Number | Observations |
| ni % | |||
| Pelvis | multiple pelvic fractures
Ilium fracture Ischium fracture
Hip dysplasia
|
7 25.0
1 3.6 1 3.6
1 3.6
|
Ilium and Ischium fracture associated with sacro-iliaques and Femur dislocations
Ilium neck fracture Break in the ischial arch Flattening of acetabular cavities |
| Thigh | Femur fracture
Antero-superior dislocation of Femur
|
8 28.6
2 7.7 |
Femur break on different parts: neck, trochanter, diaphysis…
Exit of the head of Femur from acetabular cavity |
| Forelimb/leg | Fracture of tibia and fibula | 8 28.6 | Distal fractures of two bones |
| Foot | None | 0 0,0 | |
| TOTAL | 28 100 |
Legend: ni=absolute frequency, %=relative frequency
Results in table no21 indicate the thigh region to be the most affected followed by that of the pelvis and stifle.
DISCUSSION
The discussion is based on the number of x-rays done in various animal species, and the distribution of x-rays showing lesions in the musculoskeletal system in canine species.
Number of x-rays taken on various animal species.: The results of our study demonstrated that the total number of X-rays taken on animals from various animal species is 202 images. Among them 103 (50.9%) relate to the canine species (Table 1). Indeed, the canine numerical importance noted during this investigation. This observation is due to the high number of dogs brought in for consultation. This observation corroborates the investigations of Schwarz and Saunders (2023) and Piras and Cappai (2020) in Lubumbashi and of Holler (2024) in several other cities around the world.In addition, the table revealed that 71.8% against 28.2% of X-rays were respectively based on the request from the treating veterinarians and on the request of the owners. This distribution demonstrates that the veterinarian remains the only specialist in animal medicine as stated by Budsberg and Bergh (2020) and that any paraclinical examination, like radiography, must result from a judiciously conducted clinical examination as recommended by Cook and Evans (2021); De Camp et al. (2021). Furthermore, it was observed that only 5.9% of the X-rays taken in the various animal species were non-compliant against 94.1%, or 197 compliant images (Table 2). From the compliant images, 137 images (i.e. 69.1 %) carried diagnostic information (Table 3). These results sufficiently demonstrate the merit of digital development against the manual development usually used in the hospital centre of the city of Lubumbashi. Dyce et al. (2022) and Griffon (2022) undeniably stipulate that digital development is a cutting-edge technique in imaging, a major asset that can guarantee quality additional examinations for a better care of animals. Development takes only 10 to 30 minutes. The sharpness of the images and the diagnosis are improved. According to these authors, the contribution of this X-ray film development system is a significant ecological effort because it spares the environment from the dissemination of toxic chemicals used during the development of silver X-rays.
Distribution of X-rays in Dogs: Observations from table 4 on the number and distribution of x-rays from canine species showed that males outnumbered females. The same observations were noted for results displayed in table 6 for breed and gender x-ray distribution. Indeed, several authors including Hansen (2023) and Lamb (2020) have mentioned the presence of various exotic, local breeds and their cross breed in the urban environment of Lubumbashi, while Mehl (2024) reports the high number of German Shepherd breed compared to other breeds and cross breeds. Moreover, during the last decades, many families in Lubumbashi have become interested in the production of purebred dogs. This would explain the large variation in the age of observed dogs. Results on musculoskeletal system data analysis revealed that the girdle and pelvic limbs and the girdle and thoracic limbs were more traumatised in male dogs than the spine. In females the latter was much more involved (table 8). Corroborating Piermattei et al. (2022), the influence of the breed, age or gender of the animal cannot be demonstrated. On the other hand, proximity to a road and wandering and fighting behaviour would increase the risk of an accident as well as the probability of fracture and trauma. Besides, table 9 showed that the girdle and thoracic limbs were more radiographed on dogs older than 24 months; on the other hand, the girdle and pelvic limbs were more radiographed in animals aged between 7 and 24 months. These observations corroborate those made by Verhoeven and Saunders (2021) who states that when a dog ages, changes in the body’s organs and systems first occur for maturation and then for aging. Furthermore, more x-rays were performed on the girdle and the thoracic limbs and on the spine for crossbreed dogs while the Boer Boël had more x-rays done on the girdle and the pelvic limbs (table 10). Unarguably some authors such as Griffon (2022) and Hansen (2023) consider that it is advantageous to have a crossbreed dog (mongrel or dog) due its genetic diversity and its low purchase cost compared to purebred dogs. The aforementioned authors add that for the Boer Boël breed qualities: large size, hunting qualities, its tendency to dominate same gender peers’ space and territory demanding expression of its guardian qualities make this breed very expensive. Number and distribution of radiographs on various portions of the spine, revealed that the lumbar and sacral portions were the most x-rayed in females (Table 11), particularly on individuals above 24 months age (table 12) from Crossbreeds, Dachshund and Bichon breeds (table 13). Several authors such as Lamb (2020) and Montagne and Mehl (2024), interested in locating the sites of appearance of traumatic lesions in the spine, were able to establish the following decreasing order of frequencies: Lumbo- sacral, sacro caudal, thoracic and cervical. This observation confirms the results of the current study. The results of our investigations also showed that in dogs, among the regions of the girdle and thoracic limbs, the scapula and forearm were more involved in the radiographic evaluation irrespective of the gender (Table 15), especially on dogs above 24 months (Table 15), and from essentially crossbreeds (Table 16). According to Smith (2015) traumatic injuries to the scapula are uncommon. They represent only 0.5 to 2.4% of all fractures in domestic carnivores. The same goes for those of the radius and ulna representing 17 to 18%. Holler (2024) indicates that males, more territorial than females, are often prone to fights. Regarding the girdle and pelvic limbs, it was observed that the pelvis and thigh, in females and the stifle in males were more subjected to x-ray (Table17). Investigations done by Kinns (2020) confirm that not all bones are subject to the same risks, and that in dogs involvement of the femur is most common (70% of cases). The results of this study have also demonstrated the same. In addition, these two regions were targeted by x-rays in dogs from different age groups; the stifle was more exposed to x-rays in individuals above 6 months (Table 18). Furthermore, the results from this study indicate that the thigh was more x-rayed in the following breeds: Bichon, German shepherd, Great Dane, Boer Boël, Rottweiler, and crossbreeds. It was also noted that crossbreed dog stifle was the most involved site of radiography (table19). These results are consistent with the findings of Griffon (2022) and Hansen (2023). These authors suspected that the above-mentioned regions could be much more exposed to trauma due to falls and traffic accidents, particularly among individuals from German shepherd breed. More studies on this topic are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Radio-diagnosed lesions on the musculoskeletal system in dogs: The radiographic examination done on dog spine exposed the fracture of the cervical, lumbar and sacrum vertebra (table19). In relation to this observation, Lamb (2020) points out that most investigations on spinal trauma exclude sacral pathologies from their research when they evaluate the regionalization of lesions occurring at the spine level. In terms of frequency, Alboury ranks fractures of the lumbosacral vertebra as dominant. The x-ray of the girdle and thoracic limbs uncovered cases of osteoporosis and fracture of the humerus, double proximal fracture of the radius and ulna and osteosarcoma of the radius (table 20). Study done by Griffon (2022) unveils that osteoporosis can develop quickly due to immobilization or poorly adapted osteosynthesis. Thus, a six weeks immobilization would lead to rapid bone loss. According to Hansen (2023), the distribution would be much longer, even random beyond 12 weeks. In addition, Dyce et al. (2022) demonstrates that most of humerus fractures involve the third middle and distal of this bone. De Camp et al. (2021). show that these fractures can sometimes be accompanied by paresis and paralysis of the thoracic limb caused by nerve damage. Besides they state that fractures of the distal end of the humerus would occur in most cases of minor trauma. As demonstrated by Holler (2024) forearm fractures represent 18.6% of fractures occurring on long bones including 5.1% on the radius, 3.1% on the ulna and 9, 8% on both. There is scarce information available for osteosarcoma. These tumors are common in dogs on front and hind limbs, but also on the head and on a cervical vertebra Hansen (2023). Data from table 21 indicate that the pelvic girdle and limbs, fractures of the ilium and ischium, poor pelvis development, fracture of the ilium, fracture of the ischium, fractures of the femur, femoral dislocation, tibial fractures, fracture of both the tibia and fibula were diagnosed. This observation corroborates with the results of De Camp et al. (2021). stating that dislocations of the femur, particularly in the cranio-dorsal direction, are very frequent and that fractures of the pelvis, often open and multiple, correspond to 20-30% of fractures occurring. in domestic carnivores. Kinns (2020) considers that the above-mentioned cases are due to the configuration which can be compared to a rigid frame composed of the hip bones and the sacrum. These structures being in relation to each other, a displaced fracture on one side will lead to another elsewhere in the structure. It would therefore be necessary to take x-rays from at least two different angles. The author describes pelvic fractures distribution as follows:
- Iliac fractures: 18.2%
- Pubic rami (bills): 28.2%
- Acetabular fractures: 14.6%
- Ischium fractures: 23.1%
- Sacroiliac joint lesions: 15.9%
CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION OF RESULTS
Data from this study reveals that more than half of x-rays performed at the Lubumbashi Zoo Veterinary Centre from December 5, 2015, to November 19, 2018, are attributed to the canine species. Many of them were requested by the treating veterinarians. Their conformity (readability and interpretability) demonstrated the quality and merit of the digital development system for x-ray films. This study also showed that the x-rayed dogs belonged to various breeds and crossbreeds. Male dogs and those older than 24 months were the most x-rayed. In addition, it revealed that the girdle and the pelvic limbs, in particular the pelvis and the thigh, were the most stressed parts of the musculoskeletal system due the radiographic examination. The same noted from the shoulder and forearm to the girdle and thoracic limbs. At the spine level, the lumbar region was the most exposed part to x-rays. Furthermore, the interpretation of different images from dogs allowed highlighting several lesions, often insidious on clinical examination, having affected the musculoskeletal system in dogs such as pelvic fractures, joint fractures and distal fractures. Therefore, it is suggested that the head of the veterinary centre mention on each photograph, beside the date, the names of the owners and of the animals, and the results of their respective reading (observed lesions). Veterinary practitioners, particularly those working in pet clinics, should include radiographic examinations in the treatment plan for musculoskeletal disorders.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bennett D, May C, 2023. Imaging Of Hip Dysplasia and Pelvic Fractures in Dogs. Veterinary Record 192: E2563.
Budsberg Sc, Bergh Ms, 2020. Imaging Techniques in Canine Orthopedic Disease: Clinical Decision Making. Veterinary Surgery 49: 23–34.
Burk Rl, Feeney Da, 2021. Small Animal Diagnostic Radiology: Current Concepts in Musculoskeletal Imaging. Journal Of Small Animal Practice 62: 721–733.
Cook Jl, Evans R, 2021. Diagnostic Imaging of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Disease In Dogs. Veterinary Clinics Of North America: Small Animal Practice 51: 1205–1222.
De Camp Ce, Johnston Sa, Déjardin Lm, Schaefer Sl, 2021. Brinker, Piermattei and Flo’s Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair, 6th Edition. Elsevier, St. Louis.
Dennis R, Kirberger Rm, Barr F, Wrigley Rh, 2021. Skeletal Trauma in Dogs: Radiographic Diagnosis and Clinical Relevance. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 51: 1021–1040.
Dyce Km, Sack Wo, Wensing Cjg, 2022. Textbook Of Veterinary Anatomy, 5th Edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Fossum Tw, 2022. Orthopedic Disorders in Dogs: Diagnostic Imaging Approaches. Veterinary Surgery 51: 1450–1462.
Gemmill Tj, 2021. Radiographic Interpretation of Stifle and Femoral Injuries In Dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice 62: 890–902.
Griffon Dj, 2022. Management Of Long Bone Fractures In Dogs: Radiographic Assessment and Outcomes. Journal Of the American Veterinary Medical Association 260: 1104–1115.
Hansen Ks, 2023. Radiographic Diagnosis Of Pelvic Trauma in Dogs and Cats. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 64: 512–526.
Holler Pj, 2024. Diagnostic Imaging of Spinal Trauma in Dogs. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 54: 85–101.
Kinns J, 2020. Radiographic Assessment of Appendicular Fractures in Dogs. Journal Of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 32: 593–604.
Lamb Cr, 2020. Quality Control in Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology. Journal Of Small Animal Practice 61: 641–650.
Mehl Ml, 2024. Current Concepts In Spinal Trauma Imaging in Companion Animals. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 54: 205–222.
Piermattei Dl, Flo Gl, Déjardin Lm, 2022. Handbook Of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Treatment, 6th Edition. Elsevier.
Piras La, Cappai Mg, 2020. Digital Radiography Versus Conventional Film in Veterinary Practice: Diagnostic Performance Evaluation. Animals 10: 1894.
Schwarz T, Saunders J, 2023. Musculoskeletal Imaging In Companion Animals: Radiography Versus Advanced Imaging. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 64: 210–225.
Thrall De, Robertson Id, 2022. Advances In Digital Radiography in Small Animal Practice. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 63: 3–15.
Verhoeven G, Saunders J, 2021. Radiographic Versus Ct Evaluation Of Appendicular Fractures in Dogs. Veterinary Surgery 50: 1342–1354.