Developmental dysplasia of the hip screening programme in Chile

Globally inconsistent: Countries with top health indices erratic developmental hip dysplasia screening protocols

Purpose

Developmental hip dysplasia is a prevalent pediatric musculoskeletal condition that lacks international standardized screening. We sought to characterize developmental hip dysplasia screening practices in countries with the top global health indices. We also explored diverse definitions in reported epidemiologic rates of this condition.

Methods

We performed a scoping review of developmental hip dysplasia screening protocols utilizing countries ranked in the top 25 of the Bloomberg Global Health Index using a protocolized search strategy, progressing from academic to layperson sources. A reference was eligible for inclusion if it mentioned the countries' screening program and developmental hip dysplasia was the pathology of concern. Incidence rates, when present, were also recorded. The United States Census Bureau's International Database tool provided countries' populations. We compiled the data and performed descriptive statistics and appropriate validation methods.

Results

Twenty countries (80%) had searchable screening programs. Clinical screening with selective universal screening was the most commonly observed (n = 16). Four countries had universal ultrasound screening: Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Slovenia. Five countries did not have searchable programs. No countries employed radiographic screening. Incidence rates were expressly stated in the literature for nine countries; however, the cohort of interest varied from developmental hip dysplasia versus severity of developmental hip dysplasia versus miscellaneous (e.g. requiring hospitalization).

Conclusion

The findings of this investigation highlight international inconsistencies regarding developmental hip dysplasia screening and epidemiologic data. Screening variations exist despite consensus statements calling for uniformity. We agree with prior literature advocating for increasing consistency in developmental hip dysplasia management or, at a minimum, increasing transparency regarding how we manage these young patients.

Acetabular index as an indicator of Pavlik harness success in grade I developmental dysplasia of the hip: A retrospective study

Purpose

Some articles have focused on the effectiveness of the Pavlik harness treatment for unstable and dislocated hips, yet data on monitoring its effectiveness with the acetabular index remains elusive. Therefore, this study aimed to assess Pavlik harness effectiveness in infants ≤6 months diagnosed with grade I developmental dysplasia of the hip using acetabular index improvement and identify the possible predictors of successful Pavlik harness treatment.

Methods

A retrospective review of infants with grade I acetabular dysplasia treated with a Pavlik harness and monitored with anteroposterior pelvis X-rays at presentation and follow-up. Successful treatment was defined as achieving an acetabular index <30°.

Results

A total of 231 infants with acetabular dysplasia were treated with a Pavlik harness. A successful outcome was achieved in 135 infants (58.4%). Younger age, lower initial acetabular index, and patients with unilateral developmental dysplasia of the hip were significant predictors of a successful outcome. An age of 4.5 months or older was found to be the threshold for an unsuccessful result following Pavlik harness treatment, with a sensitivity of 65.2% and specificity of 57.3%. An initial acetabular index of 35.5° was found to be the threshold for an unsuccessful result, with a sensitivity of 83.7% and specificity of 61.5%.

Conclusion

Pavlik Harness's success in correcting the acetabular index in acetabular dysplasia patients was related to unilateral cases, a younger age at presentation, and a lower initial acetabular index. The thresholds for unsuccessful treatment were an age of 4.5 months or greater and an acetabular index of 35.5° or higher.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Ibuprofen plus Traction, Reposition, and Hip Spica Cast in the Treatment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ibuprofen plus traction, reposition, and hip spica cast in the treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods. Between January 2019 and July 2020, 60 children with DDH treaded in department of orthopedics of our institution were assessed for eligibility and recruited. They were assigned at a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive either traction + reposition + hip spica cast plus analgesia pump (observation group) or traction + reposition + hip spica cast plus analgesia pump and oral ibuprofen (control group). The outcome measures included clinical efficacy, pain scores, unexpected pain calls, the dosage of analgesia pump, and adverse events. Results. The two groups had similar clinical efficacy ( $P>0.05$ ). The patients given oral ibuprofen were associated with significantly lower pain scores at 24 h and 72 h postoperatively versus those without oral ibuprofen ( $P<0.05$ ). Analgesics with oral ibuprofen resulted in fewer unexpected pain calls versus analgesics without oral ibuprofen within 72 h postoperatively ( $P<0.05$ ). The application of oral ibuprofen in the analgesia pump showed great improvement in lowering the dosage of analgesia pump versus the absence of ibuprofen ( $P<0.05$ ). The incidence of adverse events was similar between the two groups of patients ( $P>0.05$ ). Conclusion. Traction + reposition + hip spica cast plus analgesia pump and oral ibuprofen effectively mitigated postoperative pain in children with DDH and reduces analgesic drug dosage with a high safety profile.

Incidence of Neonatal Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip and Late Detection Rates Based on Screening Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Universal ultrasonographic screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) has gained increasing popularity despite the lack of benefit in terms of reducing the rates of late-detected cases (age ≥12 weeks) in randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To report the reported incidence of DDH in the English scientific literature and compare rates of late-detected cases in settings with different DDH screening strategies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on November 25 and 27, 2021. No time filters were used in the search.

STUDY SELECTION

All observational studies reporting the incidence of early-detected or late-detected (age ≥12 weeks) DDH were included. Non-English reports were excluded if the abstract did not include enough information to be included for analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The number of newborns screened and the detection rates were extracted. Meta-analysis calculated the pooled incidence of DDH per 1000 newborns with 95% CIs using a random- or fixed-effects model. This study is reported according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome measures were early detection, early treatment, late detection, and operative treatment incidences.

RESULTS

A total of 1899 studies were identified, 203 full texts were assessed, and 76 studies with 16 901 079 infants were included in final analyses. The early detection rate was 8.4 (95% CI, 4.8-14.8) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 4.4 (95% CI, 2.4-8.0) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 23.0 (95% CI, 15.7-33.4) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. Rates for nonoperative treatment were 5.5 (95% CI, 2.1-14) treatments per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 3.1 (95% CI, 2.0-4.8) treatments per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 9.8 (95% CI, 6.7-14.4) treatments per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. The incidence of late-detected DDH was 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2-1.5) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.3-1.3) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 0.2 (95% CI, 0.0-0.8) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. The corresponding incidences of operative treatment were 0.2 (95% CI, 0.0-0.9) operations per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 0.5 (95% CI, 0.4-0.7) operations per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-0.7) operations per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This meta-analysis found that early detection rates and nonoperative treatments were higher with universal screening. The late detection and operative treatment rates with universal screening were similar to those among selectively and clinically screened newborns. Based on these results, universal screening may cause initial overtreatment without reducing the rates of late detection and operative treatment.