| Literature DB >> 18307783 |
Rikke K Kirk1, Bente Jørgensen, Henrik E Jensen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Joint lesions occur widespread in the Danish sow population and they are the most frequent cause for euthanasia. Clinically, it is generally impossible to differentiate between various types of non-inflammatory joint lesions. Consequently, it is often necessary to perform a post mortem examination in order to diagnose these lesions. A study was performed in order to examine the relation of abnormal gait and posture in sows with specific joint lesions, and thereby obtaining a clinical diagnostic tool, to be used by farmers and veterinarians for the evaluation of sows with joint problems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18307783 PMCID: PMC2268693 DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Vet Scand ISSN: 0044-605X Impact factor: 1.695
Figure 1Template for categorizing macroscopical joint lesions in sows. a: Cartilage erosion (arrows) on the medial humeral condyle. b: Cartilage ulceration (arrow) on the medial femoral condyle. c: Cartilage repair (arrow) of the medial femoral condyle d: Marginal osteophytes (arrows) on processus anconeus of ulna. e: Cartilage infoldings (arrow) on the medial femoral condyle. f: Cartilage infoldings on the medial femoral condyle. Cross section of Fig. 2e.
Figure 2Template for histological classification of joint lesions in sows. a: Superficial cartilage erosions (arrows) of variable thickness are present. Articular cartilage of the medial humeral condyle. Haematoxylin and eosin. Bar = 100 μm. b: Typical osteocondrotic lesion in the form of osteochondritis dissecans (arrow). Articular cartilage of the lateral humeral condyle. Haematoxylin and eosin. Bar = 200 μm. c: Fibrous tissue and fibrocartilage are filling out a defect of the articular cartilage. Articular cartilage of the medial humeral condyle. Haematoxylin and eosin. Bar = 125 μm. d: Infoldings of thickened (retained) articular cartilage are present (arrows). Articular cartilage and subchondral bone of the medial humeral condyle. Masson's Trichrome. Bar = 5 mm.
Number of certain lesions in left and right elbow of 60 sows.
| Erosion | Ulceration | Repair | Erosion | Ulceration | Erosion | Ulceration | Osteophytes | Erosion | Ulceration | Osteophytes | ||||||||||||
| L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | |
| 0 | 3 | 8 | 49 | 46 | 52 | 43 | 25 | 15 | 56 | 50 | 30 | 32 | 59 | 51 | 55 | 50 | 43 | 38 | 59 | 51 | 51 | 43 |
| 1 | 31 | 27 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 29 | 27 | 3 | 1 | 26 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| 2 | 26 | 16 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
Score: 0 = no lesion; 1 = moderate lesion; 2 = severe lesion. L = left side; R = right side.
Number of certain lesions in left and right knee joints of 60 sows.
| Erosion | Ulceration | Repair | Infolding | Erosion | Ulceration | |||||||
| L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | |
| 0 | 34 | 30 | 36 | 34 | 38 | 33 | 38 | 30 | 38 | 36 | 38 | 34 |
| 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Score: 0 = no lesion; 1 = moderate lesion; 2 = severe lesion. L = left side; R = right side
Correlation (r) between joint lesions within the elbow joint.
| Ulceration | Repair | Erosion | Erosion | Erosion | Osteophyt | |||||||||
| L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | L | R | |||
| Erosion | 0.31* | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.22 | -0.02 | 0.13 | -0.07 | 0.25 | 0.23 | ||
| Ulceration | -0.08 | 0.29* | 0.12 | -0.01 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.10 | -0.09 | 0.17 | -0.12 | ||||
| Repair | -0.14 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.09 | -0.03 | ||||||
| Erosion | -0.01 | 0.18 | 0.27* | 0.53*** | 0.27* | 0.50*** | ||||||||
| Erosion | 0.44*** | 0.44*** | 0.14 | 0.10 | ||||||||||
| Erosion | 0.40** | 0.19 | ||||||||||||
No. of sows = 60. L = left side; R = right side. Levels of significance: * P ≤ 0.05; ** P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001.
Correlation (r) between joint lesions within the knee joint. .
| Ulceration | Infolding | |||||
| L | R | L | R | |||
| Erosion | 0.43** | NR | NR | -0.17 | ||
No. of sows = 60. L = left side; R = right side; NR = Not registered. Levels of significance: ** P ≤ 0.01
Figure 3Frequency distribution of scorings (from 2 to 9 times/sow) of gait and posture variables in 60 sows. Score from 1 (normal) to 5 (severe).
Association (regression coefficients) between gait, posture (the maximal scores over time for each sow were used) and lesions in the elbow joint. .
| Ulceration | Repair | Ulceration | Osteophytes | Erosion | Erosion | |
| Forelegs turned out | 0.22* | |||||
| Hind legs turned out | 1.74** | |||||
| Weak pasterns forelegs | -0.62* | 3.16*** | ||||
| Stiff in front | 0.85* | |||||
| Stiff in rear | 0.87* | -0.33* | ||||
No. of sows = 60. Levels of significance: * P ≤ 0.05; ** P ≤ 0.01; *** P ≤ 0.001
Association (regression coefficients) between gait, posture (the maximal scores over time for each sow were used) and lesions in the knee joint.
| Ulceration | Repair | Infolding | Ulceration | |
| Weak pasterns forelegs | 0.58* | -0.90** | ||
| Hind legs turned out | 1.12*** | -0.55* | ||
| Stiff in rear | -0.73** | 1.00** | ||
No. of sows = 60. Levels of significance: * P ≤ 0.05; ** P ≤ 0.01; *** P ≤ 0.001.