← Articles

Wilson et al: Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Veterinary Surgery 1, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 73 hips from 60 dogs undergoing cementless THR.
Methods evaluated:

  • ACVD/ACOLL (acetabular circle on VD or OLL view)
  • ALVD/ALOLL (acetabular line)
  • FHCVD/FHCOLL/FHCCCHB (femoral head circle)
Findings:
  • Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver consistency were excellent for ACVD and ACOLL.
  • FHC methods consistently underestimated actual cup size by 2.4–3.6 mm.
  • AC and AL methods had low bias (±0.5 mm) and better predictive value.
  • OA severity negatively affected the accuracy of all measurements (p < .05).
  • Highest predictive accuracy was ~49% using ACVD with rounding down protocol.

Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
‍We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍Mind trying that again?
← Articles

Wilson et al: Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs
Veterinary Surgery 1, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 73 hips from 60 dogs undergoing cementless THR.
Methods evaluated:

  • ACVD/ACOLL (acetabular circle on VD or OLL view)
  • ALVD/ALOLL (acetabular line)
  • FHCVD/FHCOLL/FHCCCHB (femoral head circle)
Findings:
  • Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver consistency were excellent for ACVD and ACOLL.
  • FHC methods consistently underestimated actual cup size by 2.4–3.6 mm.
  • AC and AL methods had low bias (±0.5 mm) and better predictive value.
  • OA severity negatively affected the accuracy of all measurements (p < .05).
  • Highest predictive accuracy was ~49% using ACVD with rounding down protocol.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary Surgery Articles!
Log InSign Up

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Wilson 2025 et al., on acetabular measurement accuracy, what was the main drawback of femoral head circle methods?

A. Overestimated cup size
B. Low repeatability
C. Low correlation with OA severity
D. Underestimated cup size
E. Not feasible in most views

Answer: Underestimated cup size

Explanation: FHC-based methods underestimated cup size by 2.4–3.6 mm.
In Wilson 2025 et al., on acetabular measurement accuracy, which method demonstrated the highest intra- and interobserver reliability?

A. FHCVD
B. FHCCCHB
C. ACVD
D. ALVD
E. FHCOLL

Answer: ACVD

Explanation: The acetabular circle method on VD view (ACVD) showed the highest intra- and interobserver agreement.
In Wilson 2025 et al., on acetabular measurement accuracy, what was the maximum prediction accuracy using ACVD with rounding down?

A. 23%
B. 33%
C. 49%
D. 60%
E. 74%

Answer: 49%

Explanation: Using ACVD and rounding down gave the best cup size match in 49% of cases.
In Wilson 2025 et al., on acetabular measurement accuracy, what factor significantly reduced measurement accuracy across all methods?

A. Patient age
B. Body weight
C. Radiographic magnification
D. Osteoarthritis severity
E. Femoral version

Answer: Osteoarthritis severity

Explanation: Higher OA severity was associated with greater prediction error (p < .05).
In Wilson 2025 et al., on acetabular measurement accuracy, which pair of measurement methods showed the least bias in predicting final cup size?

A. ACVD and ALVD
B. FHCCCHB and FHCOLL
C. FHCVD and FHCCCHB
D. ACOLL and ALVD
E. FHCVD and ALVD

Answer: ACVD and ALVD

Explanation: These methods had a mean prediction bias within ±0.5 mm of final cup size.

Elevate Your Infection Control Protocol

Implement Simini Protect Lavage for superior, clinically-proven post-operative skin antisepsis and reduced infection risk.

Start Your Free Trial TodayStart Your Free Trial

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Scott

 et al: 

Complications and outcomes of thoracoscopic-assisted lung lobectomy in dogs

Berger

 et al: 

The use of subchondral bone topography to approximate the center of rotation of the elbow joint in dogs

Longo

 et al: 

Minimally invasive tarsal arthrodesis in 15 dogs

Knudsen

 et al: 

Diagnosis of medial meniscal lesions in the canine stifle using multidetector computed tomographic positive-contrast arthrography

Dickerson

 et al: 

Outcome in 38 dogs surgically treated for hepatic abscessation