A comparison of different selective ultrasound screening strategies for developmental dysplasia of the hip

To analyze whether the addition of risk-based criteria to clinical examination-based selective ultrasound screening would increase the rates of early detected cases of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and decrease the rate of late detected cases. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. The initial search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in November 2021. The following search terms were used: (hip) AND (ultrasound) AND (luxation or dysplasia) AND (newborn or neonate or congenital). A total of 25 studies were included. In 19 studies, newborns were selected for ultrasound based on both risk factors and clinical examination. In six studies, newborns were selected for ultrasound based on only clinical examination. We did not find evidence indicating that there are differences in the incidence of early- and late-detected DDH, or in the incidence of nonoperatively treated DDH between the risk-based and clinical examination-based groups. The pooled incidence of operatively treated DDH was slightly lower in the risk-based group (0.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 0.7)) compared with the clinical examination group (0.9 per 1,000 newborns, (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0)). The use of risk factors in conjunction with clinical examination in the selective ultrasound screening of DDH might lead to fewer operatively treated cases of DDH. However, more studies are needed before stronger conclusions can be drawn.

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.