4.7 Review

Comparing Hip Dysplasia in Dogs and Humans: A Review

Journal

FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.791434

Keywords

hip dysplasia; one health; treatment; translational; comparative; acetabulum

Funding

  1. Interreg VA Flanders-The Netherlands program
  2. NWO domain TTW [15479]
  3. Dutch Arthritis Society [LLP12/22]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hip dysplasia is common in both humans and dogs due to their shared ancestry and similar anatomy. While there are some evolutionary differences between the two species, the etiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of HD show many similarities. Integrating knowledge and experiences between dogs and humans could be beneficial for both species in the future.
Hip dysplasia (HD) is common in both humans and dogs. This interconnection is because humans and dogs descended from a common ancestor and therefore have a similar anatomy at micro- and macroscopic levels. Furthermore, dogs are the animals of choice for testing new treatments for human hip dysplasia and orthopedic surgery in general. However, little literature exists comparing HD between the two species. Therefore, the aim of this review is to describe the anatomy, etiology, pathogenesis, diagnostics, and treatment of HD in humans and dogs. HD as an orthopedic condition has many common characteristics in terms of etiology and pathogenesis and most of the differences can be explained by the evolutionary differences between dogs and humans. Likewise, the treatment of HD shows many commonalities between humans and dogs. Conservative treatment and surgical interventions such as femoral osteotomy, pelvic osteotomy and total hip arthroplasty are very similar between humans and dogs. Therefore, future integration of knowledge and experiences for HD between dogs and humans could be beneficial for both species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available