German AJ, Holden SL, Morris PJ, Biourge V. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Leahurst Campus, University of Liverpool, Neston, Wirral CH64 7TE, England. ajgerman@liv.ac.uk AJVR 2010 Apr 71 4 393-8 OBJECTIVE:To assess performance of a portable bioimpedance monitor for measurement of body composition in dogs. ANIMALS: 24 client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES: Percentage body fat was measured via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and with a portable bioimpedance monitor, and body condition score (BCS) was measured by use of a 9-integer scale. RESULTS: Although the precision of the bioimpedance monitor was good, this varied among dogs. Body position (standing vs sternal) had no effect on bioimpedance results. There was a significant association between results determined via DEXA and bioimpedance, but this association was weaker than between DEXA and BCS. When agreement was assessed via Bland-Altman plot, the bioimpedance monitor under- and overestimated values at high and low body fat percentages, respectively. In 9 dogs, body fat measurements were taken before and after weight loss to determine the proportional loss of tissue mass during weight management. There was a significant difference in the estimated percentage of weight lost as fat between the DEXA and bioimpedance methods. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although percentage body fat measured by use of a portable bioimpedance monitor correlated well with values determined via DEXA, the imprecision and inaccuracy in dogs with high percentage body fat could make the monitor inappropriate for clinical practice.

• Pain Management
• Rehabilitation
• Sport Medicine