Neonatal clinical screening of the hip in the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Risk factors for a false negative Ortolani and Barlow examination in developmental dysplasia of the hip

INTRODUCTION

Although universal screening by neonatal clinical examination with Ortolani and Barlow manoeuvres is widely adopted, its role as a sole screening tool is controversial due to its poor sensitivity and failure in identifying hip joints that eventually require surgical intervention.

HYPOTHESIS

This study aims to identify risk factors for a false negative Ortolani and Barlow examination in neonatal screening for DDH. The hypothesis is that risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hips could similarly be risk factors for a false negative Ortolani and Barlow examination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the 14-year retrospective cohort study, all newborn infants born in a single institution from 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2013 were screened clinically with the Ortolani/Barlow manoeuvre by a neonatologist. Infants with positive risk factors, despite a normal clinical examination, were then scheduled for bilateral hip ultrasound in the first three months of life and evaluated according to the Graf's method, Harcke's method of dynamic ultrasound screening and Terjesen's method of evaluation for femoral head coverage.

RESULTS

A total of 164 infants with normal Ortolani and Barlow examinations were scheduled for bilateral hip ultrasound due to the presence of risk factors. Amongst these, 32 (19.5%) infants were evaluated to have an abnormal hip on ultrasound. Breech position was the only statistically significant risk factor for a false negative Ortolani/Barlow examination (14/34, 41.2% vs. 18/112, 13.8%; p<0.001).

DISCUSSION

Sonographic hip examinations are recommended for all infants with breech presentation even if they have a normal Ortolani and Barlow examination.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case-control study.

The impact of the introduction of selective screening in the UK on the epidemiology, presentation, and treatment outcomes of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Aims

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) can be managed effectively with non-surgical interventions when diagnosed early. However, the likelihood of surgical intervention increases with a late presentation. Therefore, an effective screening programme is essential to prevent late diagnosis and reduce surgical morbidity in the population.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiological literature from the last 25 years in the UK. Articles were selected from databases searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane; 13 papers met the inclusion criteria.

Results

The incidence of DDH within the UK over the last 25 years is 7.3/1,000 live births with females making up 86% of the DDH population (odds ratio 6.14 (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 11.5); p < 0.001). The incidence of DDH significantly increased following the change in the Newborn and Infant Physical Examination (NIPE) guidance from 6.5/1,000 to 9.4/1,000 live births (p < 0.001). The rate of late presentation also increased following the changes to the NIPE guidance, rising from 0.7/1,000 to 1.2/1,000 live births (p < 0.001). However, despite this increase in late-presenting cases, there was no change in the rates of surgical intervention (0.8/1,000 live births; p = 0.940).

Conclusion

The literature demonstrates that the implementation of a selective screening programme increased the incidence of DDH diagnosis in the UK while subsequently increasing the rates of late presentation and failing in its goal of reducing the rates of surgical intervention for DDH.

Implementing the AAOS Guidelines for Screening of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Before the Age of 6 Months in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) has been considered to be low in East Asia, but this may be incorrect because of inconsistent diagnostic definitions and testing criteria. In 2015, the AAOS released guidelines for systematic screening for DDH in newborns. We implemented these guidelines and compared DDH incidence and outcomes before and after their implementation.

METHODS

We used a historic comparison cohort of newborns with DDH between July 2015 and May 2017 before guideline implementation (the preguideline group); their data were retrieved using electronic medical records. In this group, the newborns received general hip screening without systemic follow-up. The postguideline group included newborns who were screened for hip dysplasia and followed up per the AAOS guidelines between July 2017 and May 2019. Their data were prospectively collected. The primary outcome in the postguideline group was DDH incidence. Other outcomes included rates of referral, surgery, and complications, and DDH prognosis.

RESULTS

The preguideline and postguideline groups included 3534 and 2663 newborns, respectively, of whom 49 (1.1%) and 225 (8.4%), respectively, were referred to the pediatric orthopaedic clinic enrolled. In the postguideline group, 35 patients were diagnosed as having DDH (incidence: 1.3%, 95% CI: 0.8%-1.9%). Both the incidence and referral rates were significantly higher in the postguideline group than in the preguideline group. Furthermore, the mean age at referral was 6.7±10.06 months and 0.9±0.25 months in the preguideline and postguideline groups, respectively, indicating a potential for early treatment in the postguideline group. Finally, the female sex was identified as a risk factor for residual hip dysplasia at 6 months of age.

CONCLUSION

DDH incidence in East Asia seems comparable to that in Western countries. Implementing the AAOS guidelines increased the diagnosis rate and opportunity for early treatment initiation, thus potentially avoiding surgical intervention. Nevertheless, residual DDH may be detected in some patients at 6 months of age, particularly in female infants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Analysis of the results of hip ultrasonography in 48 666 infants and efficacy studies of conservative treatment

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the detection rate of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) by ultrasound. To obtain the distribution characteristics of the different types (I-IV) and the role of ultrasound in the evaluation of infants with DDH (type IIc and above) receiving conservative treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed. The chi-square test was used for comparisons between count-data groups. Two-sided tests were used for all analyses. The results of ultrasound follow-up after conservative treatment are described.

RESULTS

Among the 48 666 infants examined, the detection rates were as follows: type I, 95.42%; IIa, 3.18%; IIb, 0.91%; IIc, 0.22%; D, 0.01%; III, 0.14%; and IV, 0.12%. There were 4456 hips with IIa and above, more left (54.65%) than right (45.35%) hips, and more females (82.60%) than males (17.40%). The detection rate of type IIa and above was 4.58%, and that of type IIb and above was 1.40%. After the treatment, the α value increased, and β value decreased. The cure rate of the less-than-42-days group was higher than that of the other groups.

CONCLUSION

The ultrasound detection rate of DDH is high. DDH was more likely to occur on the left side and in females. It is recommended that the infants should be treated within 42 days.

Application Value of Combined Diagnosis of Ultrasound, MRI, and X-Ray in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Children

Objective

To explore the application value of the combined diagnosis of ultrasound, MRI, and X-ray in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in children.

Methods

Ninety children with suspected DDH admitted to our hospital from June 2017 to June 2020 were selected as the research objects to conduct a retrospective study. According to the age of the children, they were divided into a group with 0-6 months (group X), a group with 7-12 months (group Y), and a group older than 12 months (group Z), with 30 cases in each group. X-ray and high-frequency ultrasound were performed in all groups, and MRI examination was added to the children in groups Y and Z to compare the diagnostic value of the three imaging examinations in DDH children.

Results

No obvious differences in the general data and maternal risk factors were observed among the three groups (P < 0.05). The final comprehensive diagnostic results were taken as the gold standard, including 23 cases with acetabular dysplasia, 28 cases with subluxation of the femoral head, 31 cases with complete dislocation of the femoral head, and 8 non-DDH cases. The diagnostic accuracy of the three methods from high to low was MRI, high-frequency ultrasound, and X-ray, with obviously higher diagnostic accuracy of MRI than that of X-ray (P < 0.05). The ROC curves showed that the diagnostic efficacy from high to low was MRI + high-frequency ultrasound + X-ray, high-frequency ultrasound + X-ray, MRI, high-frequency ultrasound, and X-ray.

Conclusion

Ultrasound combined with X-ray has obvious advantages in the diagnosis of children at low months of age, while MRI has outstanding advantages in the diagnosis of children at high months of age. MRI combined with ultrasound and X-ray can significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy of DDH and provide objective data support for the clinical treatment of children.

Self-reported knowledge of national guidelines for clinical screening for hip dysplasia: a web-based survey of midwives and GPs in Denmark

Background

The positive predictive value of clinical hip examinations performed by generalist health professionals in screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is low and declining.

Aim

To assess the self-reported recognition of nationally recommended clinical hip examinations in the screening programme for DDH in Denmark among midwives, GPs, and GPs in training.

Design & setting

A cross-sectional, web-based open survey study among Danish midwives, GPs, and GPs in training.

Method

Responders were asked to identify which of six written statements of clinical hip examinations were featured in the national Danish guidelines on DDH screening. Three statements were the official statements of the Ortolani, Galeazzi, and hip abduction examinations from the national guidelines, and three statements were false and constructed by the author group. Participants were asked to select up to six statements.

Results

A total of 178 (58 GPs, 97 midwives, and 23 GPs in training) responses were included. Overall, 89% of responders correctly identified the Ortolani manoeuvre and 92% correctly identified one of the constructed descriptions as being false. The remaining four descriptions had significantly lower correct answer percentages ranging from 41%–58%, with significantly lower correct answer percentages of midwives for three out of all six descriptions when compared with GPs.

Conclusion

The recognition of two out of three recommended clinical hip examinations in the Danish screening programme for DDH is low overall among current screeners. Efforts should be made to heighten the knowledge level by further education of screeners.

Screening of Newborns and Infants for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Developmental dysplasia of hip (DDH) is a common disorder of childhood and has a good prognosis when treated at an early age. In spite of being a significant concern, many children with DDH are not picked early and present late at walking age. In our country, it is presumed to be due to absence of a national policy for screening of DDH. Screening programmes including the combination of clinical and radiological methods in different ways have been suggested. However, the exact method of screening is controversial.

PURPOSE

To analyze effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various screening methods for DDH.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline database was explored for original case series and randomized clinical trials. Inclusion criteria were English language, screening for DDH in neonates, sample size more than 500, and studies with minimum duration of one year.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were selected to write the manuscript. This included 23 studies looking for effectiveness of a screening programme and 11 studies comparing various outcomes of different screening strategies. A trend favoring universal ultrasound screening was observed.

CONCLUSION

The literature supports universal ultrasound screening and has proved its cost-effectiveness. However, considering the logistic and financial challenges in our country, immediate implementation of universal ultrasound screening seems impractical. In the absence of any current guidelines for screening for DDH in India, we suggest professional organizations involved in the care of children and public health policy-makers to come together to develop national screening guidelines for DDH.

Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: An Examination of Care Practices of Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons in North America

BACKGROUND

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a common condition, affecting 1% to 2% of full-term infants. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and American Academy of Pediatrics have published guidelines detailing best practices for DDH screening and treatment. The purpose of this survey was to determine DDH treatment practices of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons in North America.

METHODS

We queried orthopaedic surgeon members of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) about referral patterns, treatment practices, and use of DDH guidelines. The survey included demographics, clinical scenarios, referrals patterns, and ultrasound practices.

RESULTS

Of the 1392 members of POSNA, we received 432 total responses and included 353 in statistical analyses. Results show that 68% (233/342) of surgeons practice in an institution that does not endorse a standard care pathway for DDH. Of surgeons who personally use a DDH care pathway, the AAOS guidelines were most cited (143/353, 41%). The majority (94%, 316/337) of surgeons do not believe that universal ultrasound screening should be adopted in the United States. Responses regarding ultrasound screening for "high risk" infants as outlined by AAOS varied based on risk factor. Many (57%, 200/353) surgeons have performed initial evaluations for patients over 12 months of age. While 80% (260/327) of orthopaedic surgeons believe that primary care providers are referring patients appropriately, only 57% (183/323) believe that primary care providers are ordering imaging studies appropriately.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this survey of POSNA membership indicate an opportunity to better distribute and implement DDH guidelines. In addition, the implementation of a care map with a focus on standard referral and imaging practices could improve the care of patients with DDH by: (1) reducing the total cost of care, (2) increasing the use of appropriate imaging, (3) increasing timely referral for DDH care, and (4) reducing the presentation rate of walking age DDH patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

The level of evidence rating for this survey-based study is level IV.

Imaging of developmental dysplasia of the hip: ultrasound, radiography and magnetic resonance imaging

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) describes a broad spectrum of developmental abnormalities of the hip joint that are traditionally diagnosed during infancy. Because the development of the hip joint is a dynamic process, optimal treatment depends not only on the severity of the dysplasia, but also on the age of the child. Various imaging modalities are routinely used to confirm suspected diagnosis, to assess severity, and to monitor treatment response. For infants younger than 4 months, screening hip ultrasound (US) is recommended only for those with risk factors, equivocal or positive exam findings, whereas for infants older than 4-6 months, pelvis radiography is preferred. Following surgical hip reduction, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is preferred over computed tomography (CT) because MR can not only confirm concentric hip joint reduction, but also identify the presence of soft-tissue barriers to reduction and any unexpected postoperative complications. The routine use of contrast-enhanced MR remains controversial because of the relative paucity of well-powered and validated literature. The main objectives of this article are to review the normal and abnormal developmental anatomy of the hip joint, to discuss the rationale behind the current recommendations on the most appropriate selection of imaging modalities for screening and diagnosis, and to review routine and uncommon findings that can be identified on post-reduction MR, using an evidence-based approach. A basic understanding of the physiology and the pathophysiology can help ensure the selection of optimal imaging modality and reduce equivocal diagnoses that can lead to unnecessary treatment.

Profile of Patients Diagnosed with Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip

Objective  To describe the profile of patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) diagnosed by physical and ultrasound examination, with the implementation of a protocol for the treatment and follow-up of DDH.

Methods  A cross-sectional study with DDH patients born between January 2014 and December 2016, in the city of Pelotas, Southern Brazil. Ethnicity, gender, birth weight, fetal presentation, affected side of the hip, gestational age, maternal age and family history were considered. The data on the medical records were compared with the characteristics of the general population described on the Brazilian National Information System on Live Births (Sistema de Informação sobre Nascidos Vivos [SINASC]).

Results  A total of 33 DDH patients were identified, mostly female, with a four-fold higher probability of having the condition ( p  < 0.001); the left was the most affected side. No statistically significant association was found regarding the following factors: birth weight, gestational age, ethnicity, and maternal age. The newborns in breech presentation had a 15-fold higher probability of presenting DDH ( p  < 0.001). A total of 21 newborns required immediate treatment of the hips, since the ultrasound showed a Graf classification of IIb or higher, or the radiography showed dislocation in DDH patients older than 6 months of age.

Conclusion  Screening for DDH is essential in all newborns; physical examinations revealing alterations must be complemented with ultrasound imaging to avoid the delayed diagnosis of the condition.

Ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip after 4 weeks increases exam accuracy and decreases follow-up visits

BACKGROUND

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a preventable and treatable disorder in children. Hip ultrasound is recommended for early detection of affected hips. The timing of the initial hip ultrasound and the frequency of subsequent ultrasounds are controversial topics when considering costs and efficiency.

METHODS

Registry data from the Taiwanese Screening and Audit System for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip were obtained for biometry of hip ultrasounds using the Graf classification and relevant demographic data from 2016. Initial screening results and final case management outcomes were compared to determine screening accuracy and the number of visits needed to determine final outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, we screened 1683 newborns in 2016. Of the initial cases screened within 28 days (n = 1168), 86.6% were negative, 10.1% positive, and 3.3% intermediate, while of the cases screened after 28 days (n = 515), 97.3% were negative, 0.8% positive, and 1.9% intermediate. Screening of the newborns' final hip outcomes revealed that 1641 (97.6%) were negative, treatment was administered in 8 cases (0.4%), and 34 (2.0%) cases were lost to follow-up. When comparing screening times, screening after 28 days improved specificity (89%-97%), and later screenings were associated with fewer visits needed to confirm hip outcomes (aOR = 0.19, CI95% = 0.10-0.38, p < 0.001) and improved accuracy (aOR = 13.84, CI95% = 4.23-45.26, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence of the benefits of screening for DDH after 28 days, namely: reduced false positives, improved screening accuracy, and a reduced requirement for follow-up visits. Delaying screening can also potentially reduce unnecessary parental anxiety, eliminate unnecessary healthcare burdens, and reduce costs. We recommend performing hip ultrasound screening for newborns after 28 days.

Neonatal screening and selective sonographic imaging in the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Aims

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the neonatal hip instability screening programme.

Patients and Methods

The study involved a four-year observational assessment of a neonatal hip screening programme. All newborns were examined using the Barlow or Ortolani manoeuvre within 72 hours of birth; those with positive findings were referred to a ‘one-stop’ screening clinic for clinical and sonographic assessment of the hip. The results were compared with previous published studies from this unit.

Results

A total of 124 newborns with a positive Barlow or Ortolani manoeuvre, clunk positive, or ‘unstable’ were referred. Five were found to have clinical instability of the hip. Sonographically, 92 newborns had Graf Type I hips, 12 had Graf Type II hips, and 20 had Graf Type IV hips. The positive predictive value (PPV) of clinical screening was 4.0% and the PPV of sonography was 16.1%. This has led to an increased rate of surgery for DDH.

Conclusion

Compared with previously published ten-year and 15-year studies, there has been a marked deterioration in the PPV in those referred with potential instability of the hip. There appears to be a paradox, with rising referrals and a decreasing PPV combined with an increasing rate of surgery in newborns with developmental dysplasia of the hip. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:806–10.

The positive predictive value of asymmetrical skin creases in the diagnosis of pathological developmental dysplasia of the hip

Aims

The aim of this study was to identify the association between asymmetrical skin creases of the thigh, buttock or inguinal region and pathological developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).

Patients and Methods

Between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2016, all patients referred to our unit from primary or secondary care with risk factors for DDH were assessed in a "one stop" clinic. All had clinical and sonographic assessment by the senior author (RWP) with the results being recorded prospectively. The inclusion criteria for this study were babies and children referred with asymmetrical skin creases. Those with a neurological cause of DDH were excluded. The positive predictive value (PPV) for pathological DDH was calculated.

Results

A total of 105 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 71 girls and 34 boys. Only two were found to have pathological DDH. Both also had unilateral limited abduction of the hip in flexion and a positive Galeazzi sign with apparent leg-length discrepancy. Thus, if the specialist examination of a patient with asymmetrical skin creases was normal, the PPV for DDH was 0%.

Conclusion

Isolated asymmetrical skin creases are an unreliable clinical sign in the diagnosis of pathological DDH. Greater emphasis should be placed on the presence of additional clinical signs to guide radiological screening in babies and children. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:675-9.

Clicky hip alone is not a true risk factor for developmental dysplasia of the hip

AIMS

A clicky hip is a common referral for clinical and sonographic screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). There is controversy regarding whether it represents a true risk factor for pathological DDH. Therefore a 20-year prospective, longitudinal, observational study was undertaken to assess the relationship between the presence of a neonatal clicky hip and pathological DDH.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 362 infants from 1997 to 2016 were referred with clicky hips to our 'one-stop' paediatric hip screening clinic. Hips were assessed clinically for instability and by ultrasound imaging using a simplified Graf/Harcke classification. Dislocated or dislocatable hips were classified as Graf Type IV hips.

RESULTS

The mean age at presentation was 13.8 weeks (12.8 to 14.7). In all 351 out of 362 children (97.0%) had Graf Type I hips (normal) that required no treatment. Nine children (2.5%) had Graf Type II hips but all resolved to Graf Type I hips on follow-up scans. One child (0.3%) had Graf Type III hip dysplasia and one child (0.3%) had an irreducible hip dislocation. The two pathological hips were associated with unilateral limited hip abduction. Mean referrals increased from 12.9 to 23.3 each year (p = 0.002) from the first decade of the study to the second, driven by increasing primary care referrals (5.5 versus 16.7 per year, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most clicky hips required no treatment other than reassurance to parents. Clicky hips with a normal hip examination should be considered a variant of normal childhood and not a risk factor for DDH. However, an abnormal hip examination including unilateral limited hip abduction should prompt urgent further investigations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1533-6.

Late presentation of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Aims

Despite the presence of screening programmes, infants continue to present with late developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), the impact of which is significant. The aim of this study was to assess infants with late presenting dislocation of the hip despite universal clinical neonatal and selective ultrasound screening.

Patients and Methods

Between 01 January 1997 to 31 December 2011, a prospective, longitudinal study was undertaken of a cohort of 64 670 live births. Late presenting dislocation was defined as presentation after three months of age. Diagnosis was confirmed by ultrasound and plain radiography. Patient demographics, referral type, reason for referral, risk factors (breech presentation/strong family history) and clinical and radiological findings were recorded.

Results

There were 31 infants with an irreducible dislocation of the hip, an incidence of 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.68) per 1000 live births. Of these, 18 (0.28 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44) per 1000 live births; 58%) presented late. All infants had a documented normal newborn clinical examination and no abnormality reported in the six to eight week check. Of the 18 late presenting cases 72% (n = 13) had no risk factors: 16 were referred by GPs and two were late due to administrative issues (missed appointments). The mean time to diagnosis was 62.4 weeks (19 to 84).

Conclusion

Despite universal clinical neonatal and selective ultrasound screening, late cases of irreducible hip dislocation still occur. We recommend an update of the national screening programme for DDH, a review of training and education of healthcare professionals involved in the physical examination of neonates and infants, and the addition of a further assessment after the six to eight week check. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1250–5.

Screening in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH)

Screening for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH) is a controversial subject. Screening may be by universal neonatal clinical examination (Ortolani or Barlow manoeuvres) with the addition of sonographic imaging of the hip (selective 'at risk' hips or universal screening in the neonate). In the UK, the NIPE guidelines recommend universal neonatal clinical assessment of the hip joints, a General Practitioner 6-8 week clinical 'hip check' and assessment clinically with sonographic imaging at 4-6 weeks for certain 'at risk' hips for pathological DDH. The effectiveness and difficulties arising from the UK current screening policy (clinical and sonographic) are highlighted. The purpose of the review was to assess the risk factors and efficacy of diagnostic methods in DDH, based on longitudinal cohort studies of 10 years or more.

CONCLUSION

Hip screening in DDH does not meet most of the World Health Organisation's criteria for an effective screening programme and should only be considered as surveillance due to its low sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). There is a significant risk of over diagnosis and over treatment. There is no International consensus on screening in DDH. Pathological DDH is mainly a female condition and 'at risk'/General Practitioner screening identifies few pathological cases in male subjects. The General Practitioner 6-8 week 'hip check' has a very low PPV for pathological DDH and is of doubtful value in screening and diagnosis. Unilateral limitation of hip abduction is a time dependent and useful clinical sign in the diagnosis of pathological DDH. The majority of the previously considered 'at risk' factors are not true risk factors with little or no association with pathological DDH.