# Pre-purchase X-rays



## ~ Clear Light ~ (12 April 2012)

What are people's thoughts on getting x-rays done when purchasing a horse... Would you only get them done for more expensive horses that must have them for insurance purposes? For cheaper horses do you think they create unecessary concern that outweight the benefits? Afterall, they're nearly always going to show up some bone chip or slight abnormality. Or do you only get them done if there is some concern found during the vetting? How many would you request as standard?

Sorry a lot of questions, but just wondering as I have recently had a friend spend £2000 on x-rays and had the owners take the horse 3 hours away to the vet she requested  Then I've also spoken to others who never bother at all. I know people who had the full auction set of 36 done to find their young horse had to be retired after a year due to hock problems, to people who barely get a vetting done and their horses go on and on. Thoughts


----------



## HDPE (12 April 2012)

Kiwi had hers done by the vendor and then looked over by my own vet here in Aus, and having a horse bought for me at such an expense and who aged 11 had already competed extensively I viewed them as necessary.

For little Nel, we didn't bother because she passed the vetting with flying colors, and we knew her full and honest history, having known her from a foal and therefore didn't see any risks to be worried about. She has since had them as a prerequisite for a team selection and as expected, nothing to see so we made the right choice. 

For me, if a horse passes a vetting, has correct conformation and I don't think it looks like a clumsy oaf (LUCE!! ) I wouldn't bother, but then again I don't tend to buy, just ride.


----------



## Halfstep (12 April 2012)

I had a young horse vetted today. I had a full set of X-rays done. The purchase price isn't huge but isn't small. The main reason I had them is that when I come to sell this horse someone else is likely to have them (insurance cos demand them over a certain value anyway) and I didn't want any nasty surprises. But yes it cost a lot of money. Now I have a shiny disk of nice clean X-rays, and a hole in my bank balance!


----------



## kezimac (12 April 2012)

i think i would have them done - first horse having hock spavin and current horse kissing spines! So yes worth it


----------



## Worried1 (12 April 2012)

Buying any horse, be it a £500 horse or a £50000 horse, is a massive gamble, personally I feel X-rays help reduce immediate issues not always shown on a clinical only examination. It can highlight issues which might arise in the future so can help you prepare etc.

The last 3 horses we bought were all x-rayed. We have just sold one and the buyer had it x-rayed and it was 12. They were able to compare these against X-rays taken at 7 which was very useful to compare changes (there were none).

It's expensive but worth it in my book.


----------



## FrodoBeutlin (12 April 2012)

Agree with Halfstep, if I bought a horse that I might want to sell on in the not too distant future, *in this country*, I would get them done as people are obsessed about x rays in the UK. If I wanted to sell abroad I wouldn't worry too much as, like you say OP, people tend to expect something anyway!

Re. the insurance, it depends whether you want to insure for vet's fees or for death/LOU too, doesn't it? When I insured Frodo (for the price I paid for him years ago, so minimal value -- I couldn't afford to insure him for his "real" value!) they did not ask for x rays.


----------



## now_loves_mares (12 April 2012)

But what do you x-ray and where do you stop?

A colleague and I have discussed this recently. She's had lameness problems with her last couple of purchased horses, and has discovered her homebred youngster has fractures in both front navicular joints . X-rays wouldn't have helped with the purchased horses, both passed 5-stage vetting but had other issues come to light; and the homebred is obviously unlevel so wouldn't pass a vet.

Just out of interest, what are the various scenarios? Nothing found = good, but horse could still have other hidden issues. Something found that is minor = could never cause a lame step, but will then be excluded from their vet cover if it does cause problems. Something major = unlikely to purchase it, but chances are it wouldn't be passing the vet anyway?

I'm genuinely interested, not being antagonistic! FWIW, I bought a foal 7 years ago who I had vetted. Vet thought she had some swelling around the stifle, so, suspicious of OCD recommended I x-ray them. I did, we had a top orthopaedic vet look at them and conclude it was fine. In that scenario, x-rays seemed to have a true purpose, but I'm not sure I'd do it on a speculative basis?


----------



## FrodoBeutlin (12 April 2012)

I tend to agree with now_loves_mares, I personally wouldn't worry about x-rays, am very "German" about this  However in the UK people seem to be far, far pickier than on the Continent, so if a person is buying to sell on it probably is a good idea to have them (even if not perfect, still useful to have them at x years even only to compare/contrast old and new ones)


----------



## Daytona (12 April 2012)

I discussed this with my vet he said well what do you X-ray and where do you stop..!!! All the legs , every angle, the whole spine..??? Told me it was a waste of money.


----------



## ~ Clear Light ~ (12 April 2012)

Very interesting thoughts everyone, thank you for the replies. I guess we need to remember that x-rays can only be backed up by what is found clinically anyway. We could x-ray from top to toe and still miss something significant. As many of you said it does bring peace of mind to buyers when you are selling the horse though. But what if the x-rays do show small changes yet the horse is competing at a high level and has been completely sound, is it always right to ask for a price reduction just because of the x-rays? Would people really turn down their dream horse if something relatively small was found radiographically, but the vet couldn't guarantee that it would never cause a problem? Such a minefield!!

now_loves_mares exactly, how many and what to take is the issue (£2000 and 47 x-rays is a tiny bit excessive for me!!!). It seems to depend a lot on our own experiences too, one friend of mine is always worried about kissing spine so always gets this checked out. My old trainer was hock paranoid, some people are feet obsessed... How relevant is it to just take a set of routine x-rays if nothing has shown up clinically I wonder.

FrodoBeutlin yes exactly, I agree its the comparison that is most important. In this day and age vets have to be over cautious so they're going to pick up on every tiny little thing.


----------



## be positive (12 April 2012)

A vet advised some years ago that he felt it best to only x-ray if there was reason to, insurance requirement or something at vetting raising questions.

I have sold and bought for clients a fair amount of horses/ ponies in the low end aff. top end PC type market, so not expensive enough to require x-rays.

Most have had no problems at vetting, the only horse that was x-rayed, vet and I had a few concerns, it had a clear set, it has had problems since the day it arrived, 18 months later it is still not right although competing at Novice BE it has never been lame has been scoped, tested from head to toe but is just not the horse it should be. 

So I would go with a full vetting and gut instinct, it has usually worked well for me, if in doubt walk away.


----------



## ~ Clear Light ~ (12 April 2012)

Ludoctro two different vets I use said the same thing actually which is what made me think about all this! One said that unless for insurance purposes, she wouldn't bother. But if the buyer insisted she recommended doing AT LEAST a full set of 36 as anything less is a waste of time anyway. I guess a full set of clean x-rays is nice but it doesn't seem to count for all that much, from what I've seen anyway, with horses still having lameness issues afterwards? I guess there are just too many variables involved! Why do we put ourselves through all this stress 

be positive very good point. Look at the overall picture.


----------



## FrodoBeutlin (12 April 2012)

~ Clear Light ~ said:



			But what if the x-rays do show small changes yet the horse is competing at a high level and has been completely sound, is it always right to ask for a price reduction just because of the x-rays? Would people really turn down their dream horse if something relatively small was found radiographically, but the vet couldn't guarantee that it would never cause a problem? Such a minefield!!
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't think they would! To be honest I wouldn't expect a horse competing at a high level to have perfectly clean x-rays anyway. 



~ Clear Light ~ said:



			How relevant is it to just take a set of routine x-rays if nothing has shown up clinically I wonder.
		
Click to expand...

Not very relevant, I would say. When I sold Rauti's half-brother the person buying him asked for x-rays which did show a small chip, when the clinical examination had not shown anything. The horse was still sold for the full asking price as they didn't ask for a price reduction -- I know this is only anecdotal, but I'd have behaved in the same way in their shoes -- clearly for a lot of people if something small is found radiographically & the clinical examination is fine then it doesn't really matter.


----------



## ~ Clear Light ~ (12 April 2012)

Thank you FB 

The owner of the bay I saw in Germany freely admitted he had a bone chip which caused no problems but the British part of me was thinking OMG nooo


----------



## crabbymare (12 April 2012)

Unless there was something found at the clinical vetting I would not bother getting them done. As others have said where do you stop with them and if you are going to go for a full set of x-rays would you also scan for things like tendon or suspensory problems as they are as likely to cause a problem as bones are.


----------



## TarrSteps (12 April 2012)

In North America it is standard for even quite inexpensive horses to be x-rayed.  The "base" package was usually feet (very annoying as the shoes have to come off) and hocks, knees if there was a reason.  Now many people do stifles (especially if there is an OCD suspicion) and front fetlocks and an increasing number do backs (although this is much harder to do in places without easy access to a well equipped clinic).  Also, obviously, any joint that is flagged on the observation gets a more thorough look. Something showing up doesn't always mean the end of the deal, especially on a horse with some miles, but it can (annoyingly and often unfairly) affect offer/price.  It does mean though that many horses have previous x-rays which the owner may release if there is anything suspicious during a resale vetting for comparative reasons.

Because of this no one buys a sale horse without x-rays as if ANYTHING showed up it might scotch a future sale.  On the other hand I sold an older horse that had chips in one fetlock.  They never bothered her but she was being sold to jump big fences so a concern.  Because we had her medical history and x-rays from when she was three, with the chips unchanged, it was of very little issue later on.  Without that info though, I think they would have lowered her value significantly.

As far as their diagnostic/predictive use . . . I think there is a lot of evidence that x-rays alone are not at all a good indicator of current or future soundness.  And, as others have said, they are certainly no predictor of processes that haven't happened yet!

For a horse of my own to ride, if nothing looked suspicious and I didn't want to resell, I honestly probably wouldn't bother.  And if something DID look suspicious I'd probably walk regardless.  I do think in some ways technology has replaced common sense - people will take the word of a clear medical test even when they "feel" something isn't right about a horse.  My experience is the feeling often shows up before the big flashing x-rayable issue!  I'm always a bit surprised how much money and effort people spend on x-rays when they don't always look at more obvious tests, like does the horse feel/sound/look even (not sound, even), is it resistant in any unusual way, does it move like it "should" from its conformation, does it react to hoof testers etc.

And, as above, soft tissue issues are even more likely to stop a horse than things you can x-ray.  Where do you stop?


----------



## seabsicuit2 (13 April 2012)

I dont see the point when you know that horses that show severe navicular bone damage are eventing at Olympic level. As for backs, dont they say that the vast majority of horses will show KS on xray?

Does make you wonder how much significance x rays have- some horses cope with things, others dont. 

What is the point of basic vettings anyway? I see horses that trot like complete donkey crocks pass 5 stages with x rays, for top level showjumping, racing and polo.


----------



## Halfstep (13 April 2012)

All of this is why I think X-rays are probably most useful in young horses- to look for cysts or chips (developmental OCD). Which is extremely common in warmbloods. I also would want to see at least two angles of the navicular bone. So, that's front feet, and the main potential OCD areas: fetlocks, hocks, stifles. I didn't have the back done as I agree that many horses have spinous processes that impinge and never show any problems. However I did have an equine physio check the horse over, prior to the full vetting. 
X-rays are trickier I think when it comes to an older horse who is clearly doing its job effectively. How much "wear and tear" is acceptable? That is something that the vet and the buyer will have to discuss and agree on. And is one of the reasons that I would never be happy with a newly qualified or inexperienced vet doing a PPE. 
Oh and PS. Shoes don't always have to come off for navicular X-rays, apparently. It depends on the shape of the foot. I was surprised by this too!


----------



## Booboos (13 April 2012)

I've never had anything x-rayed and I don't think I would as standard, only if the vetting picked up a possible problem area. I am not too sure where I would start as there are so many areas to x-ray and have been advised by vets before that x-rays work best if you have an earlier set to compare them to, something which is not always available at purchase.

Could I also ask, why do people x-ray for OCD? When T had suspected stifle OCD the vet suggested going straight for arthoscopy because he said we wouldn't be able to see anything on the x-rays anyway (that's right isn't it? Cartiledge doesn't show up on the x-ray?). Do all OCD horses have bone chips?


----------



## measles (13 April 2012)

When buying I have a 5 stage vetting done by the best equine vet I can locate in the area and if anything concerns me or I just feel there could be an issue I walk away. These horses will be sold on sooner or later so I won't compromise. 

I had son's 13.2hh JA's hocks X-rayed at her vetting (and scoped to confirm she is a high blower) and all came back fine. 4 months later she pulled a check ligament on her off fore..  One of those things, luck, chance, horses....


----------



## ~ Clear Light ~ (13 April 2012)

crabbymare this is very true, its not just bones that cause the common issues.

Tarrsteps thank you for the very informative answer. You are so right, the simpler tests are becoming increasingly ignored.

Seabiscuit2  haha yes, there are plenty of dubious horses that seem to pass vettings! 

Halfstep yes I agree with the areas you mentioned. That's interesting you had a physio check too.


----------

