Ukrainian Journal of Veterinary Sciences

Damage to the shoulder joint as a complication following microchipping in a dog, a clinical and legal problem – case study

Zbigniew Adamiak*, Joanna Bajon, Iga Adamiak

zbigniew.adamiak@wp.pl

Download article
Abstract

The article presents a clinical case of a 7-month-old German Shepherd who had a catastrophic reaction following improperly performed microchip implantation, which was done by the breeder. The purpose of the study was to describe the consequences of incorrectly performed microchip insertion and the consequences of a poorly done procedure in a young puppy in the intensive growth phase. The assessment of the consequences of a faulty chipping procedure was performed using clinical, orthopaedic and radiological examination. As a result of the performed examination, the puppy was diagnosed with a chronic lameness of the left forelimb, fracture of the subglenoid tubercle of the left scapula along with permanent pathological reconstruction of the shoulder joint. The article pointed out important issues such as the age of the dog at which the microchip insertion procedure should be performed, the competence of the person performing the procedure and the correctness of the chip insertion procedure itself. The authors of the article indicated that the persons who should perform the microchip implantation procedure should be veterinary staff, veterinary technicians, nurses, or veterinarians. This was the first article presenting a fracture of the scapula as a complication after microchipping the animal, and its ethic and law problem

Keywords

chip; transponder; bone; puppy; humerus; scapula

Suggested citation
Adamiak, Z., Bajon, J., & Adamiak, I. (2026). Damage to the shoulder joint as a complication following microchipping in a dog, a clinical and legal problem – case study. Ukrainian Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 17(3), 92-99. https://doi.org/10.31548/veterinary3.2026.92
References
  1. Badihi, G., et al. (2026). A call for CARE in animal behaviour: An holistic ethical research framework. Animal Behaviour, 231, article number 123428. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2025.123428.
  2. du Sert, N.P., et al. (2020). The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLOS Biology, 18(7), article number e3000410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410.
  3. Duncan-Sutherland, N., Hunt, M., Alatini, M., Shephard, M., & Kool, B. (2022). Study of dog control strategies. Injury Prevention, 29(3), 219-226. doi:10.1136/ip-2022-044686.
  4. Hamabe, L., Shimada, K., Hirose, M., Yoshida, T., Takeuchi, A., Uehara, K., & Tanaka, R. (2023). Preliminary report of spinal cord injuries resulting from inappropriate microchip implantation in two puppies. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Science, 85(1), 14-18. doi: 10.1292/jvms.22-0344.
  5. Hicks, D.G., & Bagley, R.S. (2008). Imaging diagnosis-spinal injury following aberrant microchip implantation. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, 49(2), 152-153. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00342.x.
  6. Joslyn, S.K., Witte, P.G., & Scott, H.W. (2010). Delayed spinal cord injury following microchip placement in a dog. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 23(3), 214-217. doi: 10.3415/VCOT-09-12-0123.
  7. Legallet, C., Mankin, K.T., Spaulding, K., & Mansell, J. (2017). Granulomatous inflammatory response to a microchip implanted in a dog for eight years. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 53(4), 227-229. doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-6418.
  8. Mills, G. (2021). Guidance not legislation for microchip scanning. Veterinary Record, 188(11), 404. doi: 10.1002/vetr.590.
  9.  Murasugi, E., Koie, H., Okano, M., Watanabe, T., & Asano, R. (2003). Histological reactions to microchip implants in dogs. Veterinary Record, 153(11), 328-330. doi: 10.1136/vr.153.11.328.
  10. Platt, S., Wieczorek, L., Dennis, R., & De Stefani, A. (2007). Spinal cord injury resulting from incorrect microchip placement in a cat. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 9(2), 157-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jfms.2006.07.002.
  11. Schneider, N., Blutke, A., & Parzefall, B. (2022). Recovery after inadvertent intramedullary microchip implantation at C1-C2 in a kitten. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Open Reports, 8(1). doi: 10.1177/20551169221081398.
  12. Siettou, C. (2019). Evaluating the recently imposed English compulsory dog microchipping policy. Evidence from an English Local Authority. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 163, 31-36. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.12.015.
  13. Smith, T.J., & Fitzpatrick, N. (2009). Surgical removal of a microchip from a puppy’s spinal canal. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 22(1), 63-65. doi: 10.3415/vcot-08-01-0002.
  14. Sterneberg-van der Maaten, T., Turner, D., Van Tilburg, J., & Vaarten, J. (2016). Benefits and risks for people and livestock of keeping companion animals: Searching for a healthy balance. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 155(Suppl 1), 8-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2015.06.007.
  15. Vascellari, M., Melchiotti, E., & Mutinelli, F. (2006). Fibrosarcoma with typical features of postinjection sarcoma at site of microchip implant in a dog: Histologic and immunohistochemical study. Veterinary Pathology, 43(4), 545-548. doi: 10.1354/vp.43-4-545.
  16. Zak, J., Voslarova, E., Vecerek, V., & Bedanova, I. (2018). Impact of mandatory microchipping on traceability of sheltered dogs in the Czech Republic. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 21(2), 108-119. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1376203.