Published online March 1, 2006
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 3 March 2006, pp. e557-e576 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1597)
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shipman, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Yawn, B. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Shipman, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Yawn, B. P.
Related Collections
Right arrow Musculoskeletal System
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

REVIEW ARTICLE

Screening for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Systematic Literature Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Scott A. Shipman, MD, MPHa, Mark Helfand, MD, MPHb, Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPHc and Barbara P. Yawn, MD, MScd

a Department of Pediatrics
b Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
c Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
d Department of Primary Care Research, Olmsted Medical Center, Rochester, Minnesota


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 FUTURE RESEARCH
 REFERENCES
 
BACKGROUND. Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) represents a spectrum of anatomic abnormalities that can result in permanent disability.

OBJECTIVE. We sought to gather and synthesize the published evidence regarding screening for DDH by primary care providers.

METHODS. We performed a systematic review of the literature by using a best-evidence approach as used by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The review focused on screening relevant to primary care in infants from birth to 6 months of age and on interventions used in infants before 1 year of age.

RESULTS. The literature on screening and interventions for DDH suffers from significant methodologic shortcomings. No published trials directly link screening to improved functional outcomes. Clinical examination and ultrasound identify somewhat different groups of newborns who are at risk for DDH. A significant proportion of hip abnormalities identified through clinical examination or ultrasound in the newborn period will spontaneously resolve. Very few studies examine the functional outcomes of patients who have undergone therapy for DDH. Because of the high rate and unpredictable nature of spontaneous resolution of DDH and the absence of rigorous comparative studies, the effectiveness of interventions is not known. All surgical and nonsurgical interventions have been associated with avascular necrosis of the femoral head, the most common and most severe harm associated with all treatments of DDH.

CONCLUSIONS. Screening with clinical examination or ultrasound can identify newborns at increased risk for DDH, but because of the high rate of spontaneous resolution of neonatal hip instability and dysplasia and the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of intervention on functional outcomes, the net benefits of screening are not clear.

Key Words: developmental dysplasia of the hip • DDH • hip dysplasia • mass screening • infants • systematic review

Abbreviations: DDH—developmental dysplasia of the hip • AVN—avascular necrosis • CTFPHC—Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care • AAP—American Academy of Pediatrics • RCT—randomized • controlled trial

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) represents a spectrum of anatomic abnormalities in which the femoral head and the acetabulum are in improper alignment and/or grow abnormally. The precise definition of DDH is controversial.1,2 The spectrum includes hips that are dysplastic, subluxated, dislocatable, and dislocated. Clinical instability of the hip is the traditional hallmark of the disorder. In an unstable hip, the femoral head and acetabulum may not have a normal, tight, concentric anatomic relationship, which can lead to abnormal growth of the hip joint and may result in permanent disability. DDH can lead to premature degenerative joint disease, impaired walking, and chronic pain.

Estimates of the incidence of DDH in infants vary between 1.5 and 20 per 1000 births.3 The incidence of DDH in infants is influenced by a number of factors, including diagnostic criteria, gender, genetic and racial factors, and age of the population in question.4 The reported incidence has increased significantly since the advent of clinical and sonographic screening, which suggests possible overdiagnosis.2 In addition to a higher prevalence of DDH in females, reported risk factors for the development of DDH include a family history of DDH, breech intrauterine positioning, and additional in utero postural deformities.5–7 However, the majority of cases of DDH have no identifiable risk factors.8

Self-limited hip instability is a common finding in newborns.9 More than 80% of clinically unstable hips noted at birth have been shown to resolve spontaneously.10 Because of the potential for subsequent impairment and the widespread belief that earlier treatment leads to improved outcomes, screening newborns for DDH has become commonplace. However, the high rate of spontaneous resolution raises uncertainty about the most appropriate plan of action when a newborn has a positive screening examination for an unstable hip.

Intervention for DDH includes both nonsurgical and surgical options. A variety of abduction devices are used to treat DDH nonsurgically, with the Pavlik method among the most common. These devices place the legs and hips in an abducted and flexed position in an effort to promote proper alignment and stabilization of the hip joint. The duration of treatment varies from center to center. Complications of nonsurgical therapy are not trivial, with avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head among the most serious.3

Surgical intervention may be necessary when DDH is severe, when it is diagnosed late, or after an unsuccessful trial of nonsurgical methods.11 Many surgical procedures are used to treat DDH, most of which involve manual reduction of the femoral head into the acetabulum, with or without additional procedures on the adductor and/or iliopsoas tendons, the femur, or the acetabulum. Preoperative management may include a period of traction, and postoperative management typically includes a period of fixed positioning in a spica cast. The duration and specific approach to preoperative and postoperative management are highly variable. Surgical intervention places the hip at risk of AVN in addition to standard operative risks that include general anesthesia, intraoperative complications, and postoperative wound infections.

This evidence synthesis assesses the literature on screening and intervention for DDH. It was conducted for the US Preventive Services Task Force, which had no previous recommendations for this condition. Two systematic reviews of DDH have been published previously, one by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)3 and another by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).1,4 This evidence synthesis summarizes this previous work as applicable and incorporates studies published since these reviews were completed.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 FUTURE RESEARCH
 REFERENCES
 
The analytic framework and key questions (Fig 1) guiding the literature review were developed in consultation with liaisons from the US Preventive Services Task Force. We focused on screening in infants from birth through 6 months of age. The overarching question (key question 1) considers direct evidence that links screening to improved patient outcomes. The remaining key questions examine critical links in the logic that underlies screening. To be effective, screening must identify cases of DDH earlier than they would be identified in the usual course of care (key questions 2 and 3). In addition, early identification must lead to earlier treatment, and earlier treatment must lead to better functional outcomes than late treatment (key question 5). Finally, the benefits of early identification and treatment must outweigh the harms of screening and of the treatments themselves (key questions 4 and 6). Finally, pending sufficient evidence of effectiveness, evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of screening is considered.


Figure 1
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1 Analytic framework and key questions: screening for DDH. a Screening examination (Barlow/Ortolani, assymetry, range of motion) and radiographic evaluation (ultrasound, x-ray).

 
Literature-Search Strategy
Two recent systematic reviews of screening for DDH by the AAP and the CTFPHC targeted several questions that were also relevant to this review. We used the previous reviews to focus the search strategy and eligibility criteria for our review.12 When questions had substantial overlap, we reviewed all studies identified in these reviews and searched the literature for studies published subsequently (after 1996 for the AAP review and 2000 for the CTFPHC review).

In addition, relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of Medline (1966 to January 2005) and the Cochrane Library databases through June 2004. Specific search strategies are available from the authors. Additional articles were obtained by reviewing reference lists of other pertinent studies, reviews, editorials, and Web sites and by consulting experts. This strategy was modified for assessments of screening modalities in key question 3, in which we focused our review on the relevant literature beginning in 1996, the year in which the AAP review concluded.

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Investigators reviewed all abstracts identified in the searches and the previous systematic reviews and determined eligibility by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria specific to key questions.12 Full-text papers of included abstracts were then reviewed for relevance. Eligible studies had English-language abstracts, were applicable to US clinical practice, and provided primary data relevant to our key questions. Non-English literature with English abstracts was reviewed to identify any controlled trials. We excluded so-called teratological DDH, which occurs in children with neuromuscular disorders or other congenital malformations. For all included studies, initial screening had to be conducted in children <6 months of age, and screening studies needed to be prospective, primary care–based, or population-based in design. Studies of risk factors also had to be primary care–based or population-based. Intervention and outcomes studies had to report results of children who were diagnosed before 6 months of age, and interventions had to be used on the children earlier than 1 year of age on average. For intervention studies, we were particularly interested in functional outcomes including gait, pain, physical functioning, activity level, peer relations, family relations, and school and occupational performance. For noninvasive interventions, another potential benefit is a reduced need for surgery later in childhood. Therefore, intervention studies were eligible if they reported 1 of these functional outcomes and/or a subsequent need for surgery. Studies that reported only radiologic reports of anatomic structural relationships and development, which have not been shown to be valid predictors of functional outcomes, were excluded (indicated by a dotted line in Fig 1). For AVN, the predominant harm from interventions, studies needed to report the rate of this complication in the treated-patient population, meet age-based inclusion criteria, have at least 1 year of follow-up, and not experience excessive (>50%) loss to follow-up.

We used a "best-evidence" approach13; that is, for each key question, we included studies with weaker designs only if better-designed studies were not available. Case reports, series with ≤5 subjects, editorials, letters, nonsystematic review articles, and commentaries were excluded from the evidence review.

Most studies of DDH are observational, uncontrolled or poorly controlled, and have significant flaws in design. To assess the quality of these studies, we considered the following: study design, clarity of diagnostic standards, comparability of subjects, variation in screening approach and/or intervention protocol, duration of follow-up, loss to follow-up, efforts to control for confounding and minimize bias, masking of outcome assessment, and validity and standardization of outcomes measured.14

Size of Literature Reviewed
Investigators reviewed 1145 abstracts of English-language articles identified by the searches, excluding 679 citations on first review. Review of an additional 544 abstracts of non–English-language articles identified no controlled trials. A total of 466 full-text articles were retrieved and reviewed; 416 were from the electronic searches and 50 were from reference lists or experts' suggestions (a list of expert reviewers is available on request from the authors). The following met inclusion criteria: 13 papers about risk factors; 59 about screening, including 3 controlled trials; 5 about harms of screening; 47 about interventions and harms of interventions, including no controlled trials; and 8 about cost.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 FUTURE RESEARCH
 REFERENCES
 
Key Question 1: Does Screening for DDH Lead to Improved Outcomes (Including Reduced Need for Surgery and Improved Functional Outcomes Such as Gait, Physical Functioning, Activity Level, Peer Relations, Family Relations, and School and Occupational Performance)?
There are no prospective studies (either randomized or observational) comparing a screened to a nonscreened population with measurement of functional outcomes after an adequate period of follow-up. There are also no controlled trials that compare surgical or nonsurgical treatment for early DDH to observation only.

In theory, early application of noninvasive treatments (eg, a harness) to obtain a concentric and stable reduction of the femoral head in the acetabulum may obviate the need for surgery later on. However, the evidence that screening leads to a reduced rate of surgery is weak and indirect. The 2000 CTFPHC report, which cited several descriptive studies, concluded that "[w]ith serial clinical examination, the operative rate for DDH has decreased by more than 50% to 0.2–0.7% per 1000."3 It should be noted that this reduction was observed at an ecological level: descriptive studies in screened populations were compared, indirectly, to unscreened populations or to historical rates. The studies were not comparative and did not report functional outcomes. In addition, although some studies suggest that surgical rates have declined since the adoption of universal-screening programs, they do not indicate why. The decline might be attributable to increased rates of screening, but other factors such as wider use of a period of observation before recommending surgery also could account for the declining use of these surgical procedures.

The outcome measure used in many studies was the proportion of infants and children with DDH who had surgical intervention. If screening identifies more cases than usual care, it could reduce this proportion even if the same number of cases required surgery as before. For this reason it is difficult to determine if a decrease in the surgical rate over time reflects the efficacy of noninvasive intervention or the inclusion of additional cases in the denominator who are at little or no risk of requiring surgery.

The findings are also inconsistent: some studies observed a decrease in operative rates,15–18 whereas others saw no change19,20 or an increase.21–23 Ascertainment of cases was often flawed, and the studies span several decades, which make it difficult to assess whether the varied results represent artifacts of data quality, secular trends, or differences in local practice styles.24 These studies are also limited because they typically do not follow the screen-negative population with the same vigilance as the screen-positive population and experience significant loss to follow-up in the screen-positive population that can bias the outcomes.

More recent studies also have conflicting results. In 1998, the MRC Working Party on Congenital Dislocation of the Hip reported operative rates in a randomly selected, population-based survey of 20% of all births in the United Kingdom.24 After adjustment for differences in ascertainment that had been overlooked in previous reports, the incidence of a first operative procedure for congenital dislocation of the hip was similar before and after screening was introduced (prescreening rate range: 0.66–0.85 per 1000; postscreening rate: 0.78 per 1000 live births; 95% confidence interval: 0.72–0.84 per 1000). Even in the screening era, 70% of the cases reported by surgeons to the registry had not been detected by screening. In 1999, Australian investigators reported the operative rate in the postscreening era by using an existing perinatal database and an inpatient discharge database to identify infants with congenital dislocation of the hip.25 In contrast to the United Kingdom study cited above, they reported an operative rate of 0.46 per 1000 live births and found that 97.6% of congenital dislocation cases were diagnosed before 3 months of age. The causes behind conflicting findings such as in these 2 studies are unknown.

Key Question 2: Can Infants at High Risk for DDH Be Identified, and Does This Group Warrant a Different Approach to Screening Than Children at Average Risk?
Risk factors are considered an adjunct to, rather than a substitute for, universal screening by physical examination. For example, the AAP recommends using risk factors to identify newborns whose risk for DDH may exceed the comfort level of physicians, prompting additional screening with ultrasound. The rationale for this approach is that, in high-risk newborns, clinical examination alone can miss many cases of DDH that ultrasound may be able to identify. The assumptions underlying this approach are that (1) risk factors can identify a group of newborns at a high risk of DDH and (2) ultrasound is more sensitive than clinical examination for identifying infants at risk of complications from DDH.

In case-control and observational studies, breech positioning at delivery, family history of DDH, and female gender have been shown most consistently to have an association with the diagnosis of DDH. Additional risk factors may include maternal primiparity, high birth weight, oligohydramnios, and congenital anomalies.

Primary care–based and population-based cohort studies26–36 that include ≥1 of the major risk factors are summarized in Table 1. Consistently, only a minority (10–27%) of all infants diagnosed with DDH in population-based studies have identified risk factors (with the exception of female gender),30,32,33,35 and among those with risk factors, between 1% and 10% have DDH.30,33,35 This wide range illustrates the impact of the reference standard on the relative importance of risk factors. Those studies with a more strict standard for diagnosing "true" DDH (eg, limited to those patients who receive treatment) demonstrate substantially lower rates of DDH among those with risk factors. For example, in a recent cohort study of 29323 births at 1 hospital, the prevalence of treated DDH was 20 per 1000 in breech females versus 110 per 1000 in this group if the diagnosis of DDH had been based on an abnormal clinical examination. Additional rates of DDH using the more strict reference standard were 12 per 1000 in family history–positive females, 4 per 1000 in breech males, and 5 per 1000 and 0.3 per 1000 in females and males with no risk factors, respectively.28


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1 Risk Factors

 
Lehmann et al1 conducted a meta-analysis of studies that were published through 1996 to estimate the probability of having a positive screening test for the 3 leading risk factors. Breech females (84 per 1000) had a dramatically higher-than-average risk (calculated at 8.6 per 1000 for all newborns) of being screen-positive, followed by family history–positive females (24 per 1000), breech males (18 per 1000), females with no risk factors (14 per 1000), and males with no risk factors (3 per 1000). When considering these prevalence estimates, it should be noted that the reference standard used in Lehmann's synthesis was a positive Barlow or Ortolani test at the newborn screening examination. Although this is a commonly used measure of the disorder, it may overestimate the number of infants with "true" DDH (ie, those who do not spontaneously resolve and thus require therapy). The substantial differences in prevalence between the AAP review and the previous population-based study is likely to reflect different diagnostic standards and impacts the predictive value of risk factors for DDH. Additional implications of the lack of a practically applied "gold standard" for diagnosing DDH is discussed in greater detail in "Key Question 3."

Several potential biases should be considered in evaluating risk-factor data. In studies in which the examiner is aware of the patients' risk-factor status, the diagnosis of DDH may be overestimated because of more careful or thorough examinations or more aggressive follow-up and reexamination in infants with known risk factors. Moreover, in retrospective studies researchers apply criteria to improve the reliability of their record review; this approach, although necessary to conduct such a study, reduces the influence of an equivocal or inaccurate history. A predictor such as family history may be less reliable in a prospective, practice-based study than in case-control studies that exclude patients (charts) who have equivocal or incomplete information about it. Finally, investigators' awareness of the subjects' final diagnoses could influence the way that risk-factor information is handled in retrospective studies.

Key Question 3: What Is the Accuracy of Screening Tests for DDH, and Does Screening for DDH Lead to Early Identification of Children With DDH?
The most common methods of screening for DDH involve the physical examination of the hips and lower extremities. Provocative testing includes the Barlow and Ortolani maneuvers, which involve adduction of the flexed hip with gentle posterior force and abduction of the flexed hip with gentle anterior force. The Barlow test attempts to identify a dislocatable hip,10,37 whereas the Ortolani examination attempts to relocate a dislocated hip.38 Because of variations in technique, the Barlow and Ortolani tests have been shown to have a high degree of operator dependence.39 In addition, confusion about the identification of a "click" versus a "clunk" on these tests, and the significance of each of these findings, can lead to disparate conclusions between examiners. Additional findings sometimes reported on clinical examinations for DDH in infants include asymmetry of gluteal and thigh skin folds, discrepant leg lengths, and diminished range of motion (particularly abduction) in an affected hip.4

To measure sensitivity of a test directly in a prospective study, infants who had negative initial screening tests must be followed and examined at older ages to identify false-negative initial test results. Measuring sensitivity is also difficult because results of the Barlow test can be classified into several levels rather than just 2 ("positive" or "negative"). Conversely, measuring specificity and false-positives is difficult because, in most studies, all infants who have a positive screening test are treated with a nonsurgical intervention; the great majority of these infants improve, and it is impossible to say how many of them "responded" and how many of them did not have DDH in the first place.

Assessing the impact of a screening program on the rate of late diagnosis of DDH provides an indirect measure of sensitivity. It is apparent that screening tests performed soon after birth identify some individuals at risk of developing DDH sooner than they would be identified otherwise: most children would otherwise not come to medical attention until they present with crawling or gait delays or disturbances. However, it is difficult to quantify the impact of screening tests on the incidence of late diagnosis with the available literature. Studies of the impact of screening programs on the frequency of late diagnosis have had mixed results.16–18,21,25,40–52 Most of these studies report the experience of a screening program in a defined geographic or hospital service area over many years. The comparisons are ecological, and these studies have the same methodologic problems as those that examined the effect of screening on rates of surgical treatment (discussed above in "Key Question 1"). Some studies in this group reported that, after a screening program was adopted, late diagnosis was very rare, whereas others report that screening had no effect on the rate of late diagnosis and that unexplained fluctuations in late-diagnosis rates were observed from year to year within the postscreening era (Fig 2). *


Figure 2
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2 Variation in late-detection rate according to year of study publication and screening method. Screening modality: clinical exam and selective ultrasound; clinical exam and universal ultrasound; clinical exam only. {blacksquare} indicates clinical exam only; •, clinical exam and universal ultrasound; {blacktriangleup}, clinical exam and selective ultrasound.

 
The lack of a practical confirmatory gold-standard diagnostic test for DDH makes it difficult to assess or define false-positives. Various reference standards appear in the literature, including positive clinical examination, ultrasound confirmation, radiographic confirmation, arthrography, persistence of abnormal findings on serial examination or ultrasound over weeks to months, diagnosis by an orthopedist, and use of treatment. The most meaningful reference standard defines "true" DDH as "those neonatal hips, which, if left untreated, would develop any kind of dysplasia and, therefore, are to be included in the determination of DDH incidence."2

To apply this standard, a cohort study must follow infants for a long enough period without applying any treatment to determine if the abnormal findings persist and lead to clinical problems. In 1 good-quality prospective cohort study that followed untreated infants for 2 to 6 weeks, ~9 of 10 infants with initially abnormal ultrasound examinations revert to normal.2 Similarly, by 2 to 4 weeks of age, >60% of infants identified at birth by abnormal clinical examination (Barlow or Ortolani tests) have reverted to normal when judged by repeat clinical examination or by ultrasound examination.10,37,54 Longer prospective studies28,53–59 and a systematic review of observational studies of ultrasound screening60 demonstrate that in untreated hips, mild dysplasia without frank instability usually (consistently >90%) resolves spontaneously between 6 weeks and 6 months.

The clinical examination approach to diagnosis for DDH shifts over time. The Barlow and Ortolani tests become less sensitive as infants age because of factors including increased strength, bulk, and size.3,4 In their place, assessment of hip abduction becomes the preferred examination, because infants with dislocated hips have increased contractures of the hip adductors.4 In general, the specificity of examination improves as infants age, because the hips of the newborn infant are more likely to exhibit transient and clinically insignificant laxity than they will subsequently.37 Two recent studies provide indirect insight into the changing signs of DDH as the infant ages. In a study of 1071 referred infants at 1 center, only 2 of 34 (6%) hips in patients with positive Barlow or Ortolani tests, confirmed as dislocatable by ultrasound, had any limitation in abduction at 1 to 2 weeks of age, which suggests that limited abduction has poor sensitivity in newborns.61 Specificity of limited hip abduction in newborns was also poor: among 203 1- to 2-week-old infants with limited abduction, <20% had abnormalities on ultrasound. These findings contrasted with older children: of the 8 patients who presented after 6 months of age with dislocatable hips, hip abduction was limited in 7 patients (87.5%). In the second study, a prospective observational study limited to infants who were >3 months of age (N = 683), unilateral limited hip abduction had a sensitivity of 69% (156 of 226) and specificity of 54% (247 of 457).62 The reference standard in this study was any ultrasound abnormality; among the subset of subluxable and dislocatable hips, sensitivity of limited hip abduction was >82%. Of the 136 patients with limited abduction and normal ultrasound findings at the initial examination, none showed examination or gait abnormalities at 5 years of age. Although not conclusive, these studies suggest that hip abduction is a relatively insensitive and nonspecific marker of DDH in early infancy but becomes more accurate after 3 to 6 months of age and with more severely affected hips.

Additional physical examination findings sometimes linked to DDH include asymmetrical gluteal and thigh skinfolds, and leg-length discrepancy. No studies from the past 40 years were identified that assessed the value of these findings in diagnosing DDH. In 1962, Barlow10 pointed out the lack of utility of asymmetric skin folds because of their poor sensitivity and specificity, and in 1961 Palmén63 studied 500 random newborns and found that 27% had no thigh skinfolds, 40% were symmetrical, and 33% asymmetrical; 4 of these 500 infants had an abnormal provocative test of stability, of which 2 had symmetrical skinfolds. Based on this scarce and unsupportive literature, it is difficult to conclude that these additional findings on examination are useful.

The degree of training and experience with the clinical examination of the hip in infants has been shown to be a strong predictor of the test characteristics. Pediatricians have been shown to have a case identification rate of 8 per 1000, whereas orthopedists identify ~11 per 1000.1 Two studies show that having duplicate blinded examinations by a pediatrician and an orthopedist improves the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of clinical examination screening.64,65 Additional studies show that well-trained nonphysicians, including physiotherapists and neonatal nurse practitioners, perform at least as well as physician examiners and better than physician trainees.66–68 In 1 single-site longitudinal study, as the number of pediatricians involved in screening infants increased (holding steady the overall number of newborns screened), a greater number of cases of DDH were missed despite an increased rate of suspected cases identified.69 In other words, both sensitivity and specificity suffered when there was less centralized oversight of the newborn screening program and when fewer infants were screened, on average, by each pediatrician.

Studies comparing pediatricians with orthopedic surgeons often use a study design in which the orthopedist reviews a subset of hips found to be positive or questionable by a previous examiner. This second examination may happen days after the initial examination. Also, the surgeons often have at their disposal the results of ultrasonography, and their clinical examination is not blinded from the ultrasound examination. It is not surprising that such studies show a higher sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination in the hands of the specialist.

Use of Imaging to Screen for DDH
In addition to the clinical examination, ultrasonography and radiography are also used to screen for DDH. The use of ultrasonography and/or radiography in screening has been controversial, particularly because of reports of high false-positive rates that lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful follow-up and intervention.70 Despite the controversy, ultrasound has been widely incorporated into DDH screening programs in many developed countries.71,72 Ultrasound methods include both static and dynamic assessments of the hip. As is the case with clinical examination, all imaging methods used to screen for DDH are variably subjective and operator-dependent.

In the first 4 to 6 months of life, ultrasound has been deemed to be a more appropriate test than radiographs for anatomic hip abnormalities as well as instability of the hip because of incomplete ossification of the femoral head in early infancy. No study has addressed the comparative value of ultrasound to radiograph. However, there is strong endorsement of the superiority of ultrasound in the early months of life in the literature, ranging from historical studies reporting on timing of ossification and analyzing the technical challenges of hip radiography in the young infant63,73 to contemporary systematic reviews.1,4

However, ultrasound screening is not without its shortcomings. In addition to the high rate of identification of nonpathological hip findings summarized above, the most widely used ultrasound-grading system, the Graf classification,74 has come under scrutiny. The Graf score is used in the vast majority of the screening literature to differentiate normal hips from immature hips, minor dysplasia, or major dysplasia and stable from unstable, subluxable, and dislocatable/dislocated. Many studies base treatment decisions on these classifications. A study examining the reliability of Graf classification found that among normal hips, intraobserver and interobserver reliability is quite high, with a 98% chance of having the same assessment on future readings. However, among ultrasounds that are read as abnormal by at least 1 person, intraobserver reliability was moderate ({kappa} = 0.41) and interobserver reliability was fair ({kappa} = 0.28). In addition, knowledge of the patients' history and physical examination versus blinded review of the ultrasound lowered the intraobserver {kappa} value from 0.41 to 0.37.75

Another study found moderate agreement between observers with subjective ultrasound reading ({kappa} = 0.5), but this decreased to 0.3 when objective measurements of anatomic relationships were conducted. Grading of dynamic hip stability showed only moderate agreement between examiners ({kappa} = 0.42), even when dislocated and dislocatable hips were grouped together. This study estimated that the decision to treat would have been affected in 2.4% of cases because of discordance between reviewers.76 Considerable effort was given to standardizing ultrasound assessment in this study, including a training session and 100 repetitions of conducting measurements before the start of the study. Still another study found ultrasound reliability to be similarly suspect, with {kappa} values ranging from 0.52 to 0.68 and 0.09 to 0.30 for intraobserver and interobserver agreement, respectively, across 7 anatomic measures used in grading DDH.77 These findings raise concerns about the operator dependence of this evaluation for DDH and may shed light on the variability of ultrasound screen-positive rates found in the literature.

Although there are no trials or comparative studies of a screened to an unscreened population, 2 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs)78,79 and 1 non-RCT53 provide some insight into the accuracy of clinical and ultrasound examinations. These trials reported data about test performance of one screening strategy versus another (Table 2). The first RCT compared universal ultrasound screening to selective screening at a population level.78 In the trial, patients at the University of Trondheim, Norway, were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups over a 5-year period. In the first group, each of the 7840 patients received clinical examination and ultrasound. In the other group, 7689 received clinical examination alone or, if they had risk factors (abnormal examination, breech, family history, foot deformities), ultrasound and clinical examination. In the selective-ultrasound group, 5 infants presented between 5 and 6 months with previously undiagnosed DDH, whereas in the universal-screening group there was only 1 case of late diagnosis. In all these late-presenting cases, treatment with an abduction brace was implemented and the hips were reported to be normal on follow-up, with none requiring subsequent surgery. Overall treatment rates were equivalent in the 2 groups.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2 Comparison of Screening Approaches Represented In RCTs

 
The second RCT79 included 629 patients who had been diagnosed with unstable hips on screening examination and were referred to 33 specialty centers in the United Kingdom. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive ultrasonographic hip examination (n = 314) or clinical assessment alone (n = 315) within the specialty centers. A total of 90% of the patients in the ultrasound group received an ultrasound in the first 8 weeks of life; 8% in the no-ultrasound group received an ultrasound. Compared with those in the ultrasound group, infants in the no-ultrasound group were treated more often (50% vs 40%) and earlier (98 of 150 vs 42 of 117 treated in the first 2 weeks of life). The need for surgical treatment (8% vs 7%), age at surgical treatment (31 vs 29 weeks), mean number of visits at outpatient clinics (4 in each), total hip-related hospitalizations (30 vs 23), and the occurrence of definite or suspected AVN (5 vs 8) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Thus, despite a higher rate and earlier initiation of treatment in the clinical examination–only group, the nonfunctional "outcomes" of the 2 groups were quite similar. This result suggests that, in the specialty setting, clinical examination alone may lead to a greater degree of unnecessary treatment than that which occurs when an abnormal clinical examination is followed up with evaluation by ultrasound.

A non-RCT conducted in 1994 compared 3613 infants in a universal ultrasound screening program to 4388 in a selective screening program and 3924 who received only clinical examination.53 In the selective-ultrasound cohort, a positive clinical examination was considered to be a risk factor prompting ultrasound. The authors concluded that the universal-ultrasound cohort had a significantly higher treatment rate overall but no higher rate among high-risk infants. There was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower rate of cases diagnosed after 1 month of age in the universal-screening patients. Among those who were not treated, many more children with mildly dysplastic hips were identified by ultrasound, resulting in more follow-up visits and ultrasounds for a greater number of patients without persistent DDH in the universal-screening approach.

Table 3 includes studies of population-based or primary care clinic–based cohorts screened by clinical examination as well as ultrasound screening that were published since the 1996 end point of the AAP review.28,70,72,80–83 Despite variation in the reference standards used in these studies, several important findings emerge. First, a high proportion of hips diagnosed with minor findings of dysplasia undergo spontaneous resolution. It is important to note that minor dysplasia is not identified by clinical examination but only by ultrasound. Because of the identification of anatomic variations that are marginal and self-limited, the potential exists for overtreatment on the basis of ultrasound. On the other hand, in 4 of the 7 studies listed in Table 3, 38% to 87% of abnormal findings on clinical examination were not DDH, leading to a similar risk of unnecessary therapy on the basis of clinical examination.72,80,81,83 Very few of these studies followed patients longitudinally, particularly those patients who did not screen positive by examination or ultrasound.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3 Population-Based Comparative Studies: Clinical Exam Versus Ultrasound

 
Key Question 4: What Are the Adverse Effects of Screening?
Dislocation
Although it has been suggested that the examination of already-lax newborn hips might cause injury or dislocation,84 we identified little research that sought to test this hypothesis. Three studies provide some insight.85–87 An autopsy study examined 10 hips in stillborn infants (4 of them term and 1 at 28 weeks' gestation) and found that after repeated (up to 30) "forceful" (amount of force not quantified) Barlow maneuvers, 6 of the hips became lax.85 After additional study, it was determined that if the vacuum present in the joint capsule is disrupted, the hip becomes readily dislocatable.85 A second study used an anatomic hip model and examiners ranging from clinicians with "many years" of experience to pediatric home-visiting nurses who had just completed a training course in hip examination. This study reported that the average maximum force applied during the Barlow maneuver was 3 times that necessary to dislocate a dislocatable joint and was consistently excessive across all levels of experience.86 A study with living patients used dynamic ultrasound to monitor laxity during 4 successive examinations with Barlow and Ortolani and found no increased laxity over the course of these examinations.87 However, different examiners conducted each examination, so within-subject trends in stability may reflect differences between examiners as much as changes in the joints themselves.87

Radiation Exposure
A single-center study of radiation exposure and increased theoretical risk of fatal cancers or reproductive defects reported the radiographic history of 173 patients who completed a course of treatment for DDH between 1980 and 1993. Based on cumulative radiation exposure, males and females with DDH who had surgery (a marker for significantly elevated levels of exposure) were calculated to have a 0.09% and 0.12% increased risk of fatal leukemia and a 0.23% and 0.5% increased risk of reproductive defects, respectively.88 There was no increased risk of fatal breast cancer in either gender. Attributable risks in nonsurgical DDH patients were approximately one half to one third of those reported for surgical patients. Given changes in technology and management in the time interval since these data were gathered, it is not clear whether the level of radiation exposure documented in this study is still applicable.

Psychosocial
We found no published studies that sought to identify or quantify the psychosocial stresses of the diagnosis of DDH. No evidence was identified regarding adverse effects suffered by the child or family from false-positive identification. Presumably, there is a cost borne by the family and/or society for the follow-up evaluation that ensues, but this has not been quantified. Other adverse effects may be experienced but are not represented in the literature.

Key Question 5: Does Early Diagnosis of DDH Lead to Early Intervention, and Does Early Intervention Reduce the Need for Surgery or Improve Functional Outcomes?
Ten different nonsurgical abduction devices are represented in the published literature, and 23 different surgical procedures are used to treat DDH (see ref 12 for a complete listing). The indications and timing of treatment and the protocol for the selected treatment modality vary from study to study, further obfuscating attempts at clarifying effectiveness. These circumstances are characteristic of interventions that have not been evaluated, or proven effective, in controlled trials.89 Because no experimental or prospective cohort studies compare intervention with no intervention, the net benefits and harms of interventions for DDH are unclear, not only for infants diagnosed early but for all children.90

Poor functional outcomes from hip pathology may not manifest for decades. Thus, functional outcomes have not commonly been measured. Even when measured, the effect of interventions on functional outcomes is unknown because of (1) the absence of an appropriate comparison cohort and (2) the substantial risk of bias stemming from short duration of follow-up, significant loss to follow-up, and/or nonstandardized, unblinded assessment methods without adequate rigor to ensure their validity (eg, the surgeon's subjective report of the patient's function and pain). Because of these methodologic problems, the evidence assessing whether interventions improve functional outcomes is poor, and study details have been excluded. Details about intervention studies91–103 that included any assessment of functional outcomes are included in ref 12.

Given the absence of direct evidence from controlled trials, the case for the effectiveness of early intervention rests on less secure grounds, as follows.

Biological Plausibility
It is biologically plausible that placing the femoral head into the acetabulum would facilitate normal development. Although they are retrospective, careful analyses of late-presentation cases provide convincing fair-quality evidence that late-presentation dislocations are often accompanied by premature arthritis, indicating that, at least in some cases, untreated DDH can have serious consequences.104–106

Based on this information, it is reasonable to hypothesize that relocating hips long before clinical symptoms occur may prevent morbidity and improve function. Unfortunately, an understanding of the effectiveness of interventions for DDH is confounded by the fact that many unstable and dysplastic hips undergo spontaneous resolution.10 Thus, without a study design that includes an untreated cohort, the benefit attributable to an intervention remains in doubt.

Although the number of studies is small, it is clear that untreated DDH has an unpredictable course with outcomes that are not universally poor. Among 628 Navajo infants born in a single region from 1955 to 1961, 548 were examined and radiographed during the first 4 years of life (20% in the first 6 months of life but none as neonates).107,108 Eighteen (3.3% of those examined) were found to have hip dysplasia (including subluxation but not including frank dislocation) by accepted radiographic criteria. None were treated. Of these 18 children, 17 were followed for 7 to 19 years, and all had stable hips with normal radiographs.108 When 10 of these patients were followed up at 33 to 37 years of age, none were aware that they had ever had a problem with their hips. Although 6 did report a history of mild hip pain, it did not correlate with the degree of abnormality on radiograph. In addition, all patients had normal function, engaged in light to heavy labor, and were able to contribute to society without limitations.107 Another study followed 51 consecutive patients with a normal clinical examination but evidence of dysplasia on radiograph. Altogether, 6 patients were lost over 5 years of follow-up. Forty-four affected hips (number of patients not reported) were normal after 5 years, 4 had undergone successful abduction therapy, and 20 were borderline on repeat imaging. No progression to subluxation or dislocation was noted in any of the hips.109

Reduced Need for Surgery
Early noninvasive intervention may reduce the need for surgery. This is a key observation that underlies previous recommendations favoring screening for DDH. As discussed earlier, however (see "Key Question 1"), the evidence supporting this assertion is conflicting. Moreover, the need for surgery is a moving target: when they are observed, reductions in surgical rates might have occurred because of changing indications or because of wider use of a period of observation before surgery rather than because of screening itself.

Earlier intervention may reduce the risk of complications. Several observational studies examined the impact of age at the time of intervention.25,81,95,110–113 In 1 small study that included children initiating therapy for DDH from birth through 4 months of age, duration of treatment increased in a dose-response fashion as the age at initiation of treatment increased, holding the severity of DDH steady.81 In a separate series of patients who underwent surgery for DDH (70% of whom had failed therapy with a Pavlik harness), those who were 6 to 9 months of age (18 patients) required no additional corrective surgeries, whereas 29% of the patients 10 to 11 months of age, 13% of patients 12 to 14 months of age, 26% of patients 15 to 18 months of age, and 30% of patients 19 to 24 months of age required additional surgical interventions.110 Another study, based on unadjusted analysis, reported that the average age of DDH cases complicated by AVN was >15 months, whereas uncomplicated cases averaged 11 months of age.111 Two additional studies found that intervention initiated after 6 months of age was associated with significantly higher rates of AVN.95,112 In a study that focused on late diagnosis of DDH, closed reduction failed in a similar proportion of cases in children aged 0 to 3 months as those 3 to 6 months but failed significantly more frequently after 6 months of age (no upper age limit was identified, potentially biasing these conclusions).113 Finally, a study of 55 children who underwent operative procedures for DDH between 1988 and 1998 found that procedures were less invasive in children who were <6 months. All children >12 months who underwent a procedure for DDH required an osteotomy, the most invasive procedure.25 Although inconclusive, these studies provide fair evidence that initiation of interventions after 6 months of age may carry added risks of harms.

In contrast, 3 retrospective observational studies did not support an effect of age on success of treatment.94,114,115 The first study reviewed the rate of success of closed reduction and showed no difference among patients who were treated with this intervention at <6, 7 to 12, or 13 to 18 months.114 A study limited to 168 children with hip subluxation or dislocation and a minimum follow-up of 5 years compared children in whom a Pavlik harness was successful with those who required closed reduction and those who eventually required open reduction and found that age was not a predictive factor of the success of nonsurgical therapy.115 Finally, a study of 75 children with DDH who were treated within the first 14 weeks of life with the Pavlik method showed that age at initiation (ranging from 5 to 13 weeks) had no influence on duration of treatment, success rate, or AVN outcome at 1 year of age.94

It is possible that some relevant literature was excluded because we limited the review to studies in children whose intervention began within their first year of life. Within this period, conclusive evidence of a clear benefit of earlier intervention is elusive. The design of the studies cannot exclude other plausible explanations for the association between age at intervention and rates of surgery. One of these explanations is that passive abduction therapy may be less effective because children become stronger and more mobile beyond 6 months of age. Another explanation is that the early-treated group included a high proportion of children with mild disease that would have recovered without intervention, whereas the older children had persistent disease that would not have responded even if they had been treated earlier.

Improved Radiographic Appearance
Use of noninvasive treatments is often associated with improvements in radiographic or sonographic appearance. Although radiographic reduction may be an essential step in the causal pathway from congenital dislocation to prevention of serious complications, radiographic outcomes have not been shown to be valid or reliable surrogates for functional outcomes. The most commonly used and widely accepted radiographic assessment is a 6-level scale that was described initially by Severin116 in 1941, which was based on radiologic appearance of hips in 16- to 24-year-olds. One study examined the validity of the Severin classification with functional outcomes in patients, at an average of 31 years postintervention, who had received surgery for dislocation of the hip.117 The study found that radiographic findings (normal position of femoral neck and head, degree of arthritis, and shape of the femoral head) were poorly correlated with the outcomes of range of motion and pain.

Two studies assessed the reliability of the Severin classification.118,119 Ali et al118 found intraobserver reliability among pediatric orthopedists in the United Kingdom with ≥7 years experience to be moderate to substantial ({kappa} ranging from .58 to .77) and interobserver reliability to be poor to slight in the intermediate Severin classes of II and III ({kappa} = 0.19–0.20) and moderate ({kappa} = 0.44–0.54) in the disparate Severin classifications of I (normal) and V (marginal dislocation). Ward et al119 found even less reassuring results. Blinded assessments by pediatric orthopedists in this study were assessed by dichotomous observer groups as well as multirater groups and found {kappa} scores in the range of 0.0 to 0.29 across the range of Severin classes and no higher than 0.56 for overall agreement across any 2 surgeons. Even more concerning was that the operating surgeon’s unblinded scores showed uniform poor reliability ({kappa} = 0.02–0.21) when compared with each of the blinded observer's scores. Despite the absence of studies supporting the reliability of radiographic measures, intervention studies rarely included blinded or repeated assessments of radiographic outcomes. Because of highly suspect validity and reliability, studies that reported only radiographic outcomes were excluded from additional review.

Closer Follow-up
Diagnosis leads to attentive follow-up of infants with DDH, which facilitates quick detection and intervention. Thus, children who undergo early noninvasive therapy may benefit from closer follow-up and the physician's ability to react to a deteriorating condition more rapidly. Although limited, available evidence supports the notion that a high proportion of families follow through with the initial referral.29 However, we could not determine how many families adhere to ongoing follow-up.

Underlying the effectiveness of early diagnosis and early intervention is the degree to which families adhere to medical recommendations. One study assessed failure to follow-up with a specialty appointment after identification of newborns with an abnormality on examination or the presence of a risk factor for DDH.29 This specialty clinic, a part of Britain's national health system, followed a systematic approach to contacting nonattenders, including up to 2 letters to the family that explained the reason for referral and safety of ultrasound and offered an appointment the following week, followed by contact with the general practitioner to persuade the family. With this approach, nearly 95% of patients followed up. The groups with the highest follow-up rate (>98%) included those with an unstable hip at the newborn examination and those with a positive family history. It may be unlikely that the average orthopedic clinic in the United States will achieve an equivalent rate of follow-up, given access barriers and less robust efforts at contacting those who initially miss scheduled appointments.

A second study, based in the United States, examined the rates of parental adherence to recommended abduction therapy with the Pavlik harness.120 Of 32 patients treated by the same physician, only 2 families reported strict adherence to the physician's orders in a posttreatment questionnaire. Nonadherence was defined as failure to do ≥1 of the following: (1) full-time use during the initial period of reduction when the hip was not stable; (2) altering or deliberating misplacing the harness; or (3) discontinuing use of the harness for prolonged periods of time without permission. Nearly two thirds of the mothers who participated in the study had a college education or advanced degree; their age range was 17 to 40 years (average: 29 years). Harness therapy failed for 3 of the 32 patients, and by the authors' report these cases were not more egregious in their degree of noncompliance than successfully treated children. The single exception was a mother who routinely removed or adjusted the harness because the child could not fit into a car seat because of the limited adduction.120

Key Question 6: What Are the Adverse Effects of Early Diagnosis and/or Intervention?
Good-quality literature examining harms of intervention for DDH would include a comparison of ≥2 (ideally randomized) cohorts, each exposed to a standardized intervention and followed over sufficient time (with limited loss to follow-up) to ensure complete ascertainment of the potential harms with an assessment of the effect of the measured harms on patient outcomes. Unfortunately, these studies have not yet been conducted. In their absence, we reviewed the fair-quality literature on adverse effects of both nonsurgical and surgical interventions.

The most well-described adverse effect from interventions aimed at treating DDH is AVN of the femoral head. This is the most common adverse effect for both abduction therapy and surgical interventions. AVN severity ranges from a persistent but asymptomatic radiographic finding to a severe condition that causes growth arrest and can lead to eventual destruction of the joint. The rates described in the literature for AVN vary greatly for abduction therapy as well as surgical interventions (Fig 3). {dagger} The reasons for these disparate findings are not straightforward and most likely relate to a complex and confounded set of variables including but not limited to the wide spectrum of the disorder, heterogeneous populations studied (age at intervention, specific type of DDH, previous interventions received), the variety of interventions and the poorly standardized approach to interventions (particularly the preintervention and postintervention phase of management), variable training and talent among the treating physicians, different lengths of follow-up across studies, and disparate approaches to follow-up in different health care systems. As calculated in the AAP review, meta-analytic rates of AVN range from 13.5 to 109 per 1000 infants who undergo treatment (nonsurgical versus surgical rates were not specified).1


Figure 3
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3 Range of published rates of AVN. Due to the fact that studies were inconsistent in reporting % of children or % of hips with AVN, both are included in this figure.

 
Additional harms from abduction therapy that have been addressed in the literature are typically mild and self-limited and include rash, pressure sores, and femoral nerve palsy. All surgical interventions carry the risks inherent in general anesthesia, and those that involve open surgery also include the generic surgical risks of infection, excessive bleeding, and wrong-site surgery, although these receive scant review in the published literature and thus cannot be quantified.

A fair-quality study that assessed the long-term psychological impact on children of successfully treated DDH showed that parents and teachers found that children with DDH were more "disordered" than peers with no hospitalizations, 1 hospitalization, and multiple hospitalizations on the domains of "health," "habits," and "behavior."130 This 1983 study implies (but does not quantify) extended hospitalizations for children with DDH as a rule and thus may not be generalizable to the impact of treatment today.

Key Question 7: What Cost-Effectiveness Issues Apply to Screening for DDH?
Several economic analyses of screening for DDH have been published.79,90,131–136 Most of them concern the marginal benefit of ultrasound screening in relation to screening with clinical examination.79,90,132,133,136 None of the available studies used quality-adjusted life-years, and none used models based on US data or the US health care system. These analyses demonstrate that the economic impact of ultrasound screening is complex, reflecting that ultrasound may have mixed effects on the diagnosis of DDH: it may identify false-positive clinical examinations, reducing or shortening the duration of unnecessary treatments, but it also identifies many abnormalities in infants who have normal physical examinations, potentially leading to more early treatment and greater follow-up costs. The mixed results of the economic studies largely reflect mixed results of the clinical studies on which they are based. The best-quality economic study, derived from an RCT (in the United Kingdom) of clinical examination screening versus clinical examination plus ultrasound maintained detailed records of utilization of medical services and related costs.79 Although the costs of ultrasound were predictably higher in the cohort receiving ultrasound, hospitalization costs in this group were lower. In sum, the overall direct medical costs for the 2 approaches were not statistically significantly different.79 This study did not report indirect costs such as missed work by the family, nor did it include the costs of long-term follow-up or complications.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
FUTURE RESEARCH
 REFERENCES
 
As a condition that can result in impaired functional outcomes for children and adults, DDH merits the attention of primary care clinicians. However, there is no direct evidence that screening improves functional outcomes, and the evidence for several links in the analytic framework is weak. Table 4 summarizes the quality of the evidence.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4 Evidence Summary

 
The definition of DDH is variable, including dislocated, dislocatable, subluxable, and dysplastic hips. The benefits of early intervention are based on expert opinion along with mixed evidence that later diagnosis results in a greater likelihood for surgical intervention and more complications. Using indirect comparisons, some studies suggest that earlier diagnosis is associated with better results, but these findings could be the result of lead-time bias, that is, the identification of DDH in a group of younger patients, in whom a higher rate of spontaneous resolution may lead to better outcomes, rather than the effect of earlier intervention. The outcomes of screened infants have not been compared with those of unscreened infants in an experimental or observational study.

Despite a paucity of evidence supporting its value in improving outcomes, universal screening for DDH is a well-established approach to the disorder. However, the approach to screening varies significantly. In addition to physical examination with the provocative tests of Barlow and Ortolani and evaluation of range of motion that emphasizes abduction of the hip, static and dynamic ultrasound are used to identify anatomic abnormalities and stability of the hip, respectively. Some have recommended risk stratification to inform selective use of ultrasound, with females in breech positioning at delivery found to have the highest rate of clinical hip instability (84 per 1000). Yet, when a more conservative reference standard for DDH is used, the value of ultrasound as an aid to diagnosis in those with risk factors is less conclusive. Some health systems have elected to use universal ultrasound screening in an effort to reduce the incidence of late diagnosis of DDH. The use of ultrasound to further evaluate hips found to be unstable on clinical examination may reduce the rate of unnecessary treatment but also may lead to higher rates of follow-up for hips that ultimately will spontaneously normalize. The reliability of DDH classification by ultrasound is questionable. Theoretical harms from screening include examiner-induced hip pathology with vigorous provocative testing, elevated risk of certain cancers from increased radiation exposure from follow-up radiographic tests, and parental psychosocial stress from the diagnosis and therapy. None of these have been quantified in patients/families in clinical studies published to date beyond anecdotes.

It is known that a significant number of hips with positive screening tests, by both physical examination and ultrasound, will normalize over time without intervention. This is particularly true of ultrasound in hips that are stable on clinical examination of the neonate: >90% of abnormal ultrasound findings in this situation have been shown to normalize spontaneously. Although limited fair-quality evidence exists to support the value of initiating treatment within the first 6 months of life, there is little to suggest that immediate treatment in the neonatal period is associated with improved outcomes or a reduced need for subsequent surgery. However, no study has examined the effect of timing of treatment initiation and controlling for the degree of hip instability.

First-line intervention includes abduction bracing of the hips, which attempts to induce passive alignment of the hip. Several devices are used for abduction, with a wide range of institutional protocols. Failure of abduction therapy, or the occasional case of dislocated and clinically irreducible hips at presentation, leads to surgical intervention. The indications and protocols for surgery vary widely, as do the preoperative and postoperative approaches to management.

Estimates of the effectiveness of therapy are confounded by spontaneous resolution of hip dysplasia, which has only rarely been assessed and never in a prospective or comparative fashion. The impact of interventions on functional outcomes is rarely addressed in the literature and when addressed is of poor quality because of a lack of standardization within studies and the absence of validated functional outcome measures across studies.

The most significant and common adverse effect of both nonsurgical and surgical intervention for hip dysplasia is AVN of the femoral head, which can lead to growth arrest and eventual destruction of the hip joint. The balance of benefits and harms of intervention is obscured by significant gaps in the available evidence. Similarly, assessment of the cost-effectiveness of screening for DDH requires more conclusive information about effectiveness.


   FUTURE RESEARCH
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 FUTURE RESEARCH
REFERENCES
 
Although the body of literature on screening and intervention for DDH has significant flaws, several recent studies provide valuable information on the screening evaluation of DDH. However, conclusive evidence is still absent. A more complete understanding of the natural history of spontaneous resolution of hip instability and dysplasia is needed to develop an evidence-based strategy for conducting screening and implementing therapy at the optimal time. Given the infrequent nature of DDH, multicenter studies of interventions that measure functional outcomes in a standardized fashion are needed. Studies designed to assess whether any clearly defined, reliable radiologic markers predict functional outcomes would be a valuable step. Even more valuable would be patient-centered research that seeks to understand patient and family preferences as they relate to the process of care and short- and long-term outcomes of DDH.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Accepted Oct 19, 2005.

Address correspondence to Scott A. Shipman, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, 707 SW Gaines Rd, CDRC-P, Portland, OR 97239. E-mail: shipmans{at}ohsu.edu

The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

* Refs 16–18, 20–22, 29, 33, 40, 45, 50, and 53. Back

{dagger} Refs 91–95, 97, 99, 101–103, 112, and 121–129. Back


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 FUTURE RESEARCH
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Lehmann HP, Hinton R, Morello P, Santoli J. Developmental dysplasia of the hip practice guideline: technical report. Committee on Quality Improvement and Subcommittee on Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip. Pediatrics. 2000;105 (4). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/e57
  2. Bialik V, Bialik GM, Blazer S, Sujov P, Wiener F, Berant M. Developmental dysplasia of the hip: a new approach to incidence. Pediatrics. 1999;103 :93 –99[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Patel H; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health C. Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening and management of developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns. CMAJ. 2001;164 :1669 –1677[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Quality Improvement, Subcommittee on Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip. Clinical practice guideline: early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip. Pediatrics. 2000;105 :896 –905[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Omeroglu H, Koparal S. The role of clinical examination and risk factors in the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip: a prospective study in 188 referred young infants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001;121 :7 –11
  6. Yiv BC, Saidin R, Cundy PJ, et al. Developmental dysplasia of the hip in South Australia in 1991: prevalence and risk factors. J Paediatr Child Health. 1997;33 :151 –156[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Chan A, McCaul KA, Cundy PJ, et al. Perinatal risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997;76 :F94 –F100[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Standing Medical Advisory Committee. Screening for the detection of congenital dislocation of the hip. Arch Dis Child. 1986;61 :921 –926[Free Full Text]
  9. Gardiner HM, Clarke NM, Dunn PM. A sonographic study of the morphology of the preterm neonatal hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10 :633 –637[Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Barlow T. Early diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1962;44 :292 –301[Web of Science]
  11. Vitale MG, Skaggs DL. Developmental dysplasia of the hip from six months to four years of age. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9 :401 –411[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Shipman SA, Helfand M, Nygren P, Bougatsos C. Screening for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Systematic Evidence Synthesis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. In press.
  13. Slavin R. Best practice synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ Res. 1986;15 :5 –11
  14. McDonagh M, Carson S, Ash J, et al. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Brain Injury, Cerebral Palsy, and Stroke. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 85; AHRQ Publication 04-E003
  15. Tredwell SJ, Bell HM. Efficacy of neonatal hip examination. J Pediatr Orthop. 1981;1 :61 –65[Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Dunn PM, Evans RE, Thearle MJ, Griffiths HE, Witherow PJ. Congenital dislocation of the hip: early and late diagnosis and management compared. Arch Dis Child. 1985;60 :407 –414[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Yngve D, Gross R. Late diagnosis of hip dislocation in infants. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10 :777 –779[Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Macnicol MF. Results of a 25-year screening programme for neonatal hip instability. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72 :1057 –1060
  19. Place MJ, Parkin DM, Fritton JM. Effectiveness of neonatal screening for congenital dislocation of the hip. Lancet. 1978;2 (8083):249–250
  20. MacKenzie IG, Wilson JG. Problems encountered in the early diagnosis and management of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981;63 -B:38–42
  21. Sanfridson J, Redlund-Johnell I, Uden A. Why is congenital dislocation of the hip still missed? Analysis of 96,891 infants screened in Malmo 1956–1987. Acta Orthop Scand. 1991;62 :87 –91[Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Catford JC, Bennet GC, Wilkinson JA. Congenital hip dislocation: an increasing and still uncontrolled disability? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;285 (6354):1527–1530
  23. Patterson CC, Kernohan WG, Mollan RA, Haugh PE, Trainor BP. High incidence of congenital dislocation of the hip in Northern Ireland. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1995;9 :90 –97[Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Godward S, Dezateux C. Surgery for congenital dislocation of the hip in the UK as a measure of outcome of screening. MRC Working Party on Congenital Dislocation of the Hip. Medical Research Council [published correction appears in Lancet. 1998;351:1664]. Lancet. 1998;351 :1149 –1152[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Chan A, Cundy PJ, Foster BK, Keane RJ, Byron-Scott R. Late diagnosis of congenital dislocation of the hip and presence of a screening programme: South Australian population-based study. Lancet. 1999;354 :1514 –1517[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Andersson JE, Oden A. The breech presentation and the vertex presentation following an external version represent risk factors for neonatal hip instability. Acta Paediatr. 2001;90 :895 –898[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Artz TD, Lim WN, Wilson PD, Levine DB, Salvati EA. Neonatal diagnosis, treatment and related factors of congenital dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;(110):112–136
  28. Bache CE, Clegg J, Herron M. Risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip: ultrasonographic findings in the neonatal period. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2002;11 :212 –218[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Boeree NR, Clarke NM. Ultrasound imaging and secondary screening for congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76 :525 –533
  30. Boere-Boonekamp MM, Kerkhoff TH, Schuil PB, Zielhuis GA. Early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip in the Netherlands: the validity of a standardized assessment protocol in infants. Am J Public Health. 1998;88 :285 –288[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Goss PW. Successful screening for neonatal hip instability in Australia. J Paediatr Child Health. 2002;38 :469 –474[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Holen KJ, Tegnander A, Terjesen T, Johansen OJ, Eik-Nes SH. Ultrasonographic evaluation of breech presentation as a risk factor for hip dysplasia. Acta Paediatr. 1996;85 :225 –229[Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Jones DA. Importance of the clicking hip in screening for congenital dislocation of the hip. Lancet. 1989;1 (8638):599–601
  34. Miranda L, Palomo JM, Monzonis J, Marti V. Prevention of congenital dislocation of the hip in the newborn. J Pediatr Orthop. 1988;8 :671 –675[Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Sahin F, Akturk A, Beyazova U, et al. Screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip: results of a 7-year follow-up study. Pediatr Int. 2004;46 :162 –166[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Walter RS, Donaldson JS, Davis CL, et al. Ultrasound screening of high-risk infants: a method to increase early detection of congenital dysplasia of the hip. Am J Dis Child. 1992;146 :230 –234[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Barlow T. Early diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip in the newborn. Proc R Soc Med. 1966;59 :1103 –1106[Web of Science][Medline]
  38. Ortolani M. Congenital hip dysplasia in the light of early and very early diagnosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(119):6–10
  39. Baronciani D, Atti G, Andiloro F, et al. Screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip: from theory to practice. Collaborative Group DDH Project. Pediatrics. 1997;99 (2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/99/2/e5
  40. Bjerkreim I, Arseth PH. Congenital dislocation of the hip in Norway: late diagnosis CDH in the years 1970 to 1974. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1978;67 :329 –332[Web of Science][Medline]
  41. Quinland WR, Brady PG, Regan BF. Late diagnosis of congenital dislocation of the hip. Ir Med J. 1978;71 :447 –449[Web of Science][Medline]
  42. Glass A, Dunningham TH. Capsular arthroplasty of the hip for congenital dislocation. Isr J Med Sci. 1980;16 :328 –332[Web of Science][Medline]
  43. Kepley RF, Weiner DS. Treatment of congenital dysplasia-subluxation of the hip in children under one year of age. J Pediatr Orthop. 1981;1 :413 –418[Web of Science][Medline]
  44. Late diagnosis of hip dislocation. Lancet. 1983;2 (8342):145
  45. Heikkila E, Ryoppy S, Louhimo I. Late diagnosis in congenital dislocation of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand. 1984;55 :256 –260[Web of Science][Medline]
  46. Lehmann EC, Street DG. Neonatal screening in Vancouver for congenital dislocation of the hip. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124 :1003 –1008[Abstract]
  47. Watanabe M, Yanagisawa M, Fukuda S, Takahashi I, Matsumoto M. Examination, prevention and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip in the newborn infant: experience over an eighteen-year period [in Japanese]. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi. 1986;60 :1063 –1078[Medline]
  48. Knox EG, Armstrong EH, Lancashire RJ. Effectiveness of screening for congenital dislocation of the hip. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1987;41 :283 –289[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Watanabe M, Yanagisawa M. Late diagnosis of congenital dislocation of the hip in the newborn. Fukushima J Med Sci. 1988;34 :75 –80[Medline]
  50. Hazel JR, Beals RK. Diagnosing dislocation of the hip in infancy. West J Med. 1989;151 :39 –41[Web of Science][Medline]
  51. Kernohan WG, Nugent GE, Haugh PE, et al. Sensitivity of manual palpation in testing the neonatal hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(294):211–215
  52. Clarke NM, Clegg J, Al-Chalabi AN. Ultrasound screening of hips at risk for CDH: failure to reduce the incidence of late cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71 :9 –12
  53. Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT. Ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the neonate: the effect on treatment rate and prevalence of late cases. Pediatrics. 1994;94 :47 –52[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Sampath JS, Deakin S, Paton RW. Splintage in developmental dysplasia of the hip: how low can we go? J Pediatr Orthop. 2003;23 :352 –355[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  55. Castelein RM, Sauter AJ, de Vlieger M, van Linge B. Natural history of ultrasound hip abnormalities in clinically normal newborns. J Pediatr Orthop. 1992;12 :423 –427[Web of Science][Medline]
  56. Terjesen T, Holen KJ, Tegnander A. Hip abnormalities detected by ultrasound in clinically normal newborn infants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78 :636 –640
  57. Wood MK, Conboy V, Benson MK. Does early treatment by abduction splintage improve the development of dysplastic but stable neonatal hips? J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20 :302 –305[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  58. Burger BJ, Burger JD, Bos CF, Obermann WR, Rozing PM, Vandenbroucke JP. Neonatal screening and staggered early treatment for congenital dislocation or dysplasia of the hip. Lancet. 1990;336 :1549 –1553[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  59. Marks DS, Clegg J, al-Chalabi AN. Routine ultrasound screening for neonatal hip instability: can it abolish late-presenting congenital dislocation of the hip? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76 :534 –538
  60. Puhan MA, Woolacott N, Kleijnen J, Steurer J. Observational studies on ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns: a systematic review. Ultraschall Med. 2003;24 :377 –382[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  61. Jari S, Paton RW, Srinivasan MS. Unilateral limitation of abduction of the hip: a valuable clinical sign for DDH? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84 :104 –107
  62. Castelein RM, Korte J. Limited hip abduction in the infant. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21 :668 –670[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  63. Palmén K. Preluxation of the hip joint: diagnosis and treatment in the newborn and the diagnosis of congenital dislocation of the hip joint in Sweden during the years 1948–1960. Acta Paediatr. 1961;50 (suppl 129):1–71
  64. Bialik V, Fishman J, Katzir J, Zeltzer M. Clinical assessment of hip instability in the newborn by an orthopedic surgeon and a pediatrician. J Pediatr Orthop. 1986;6 :703 –705[Web of Science][Medline]
  65. Holen KJ, Tegnander A, Terjesen T, Johansen OJ, Eik-Nes SH. Ultrasonography of clinically unstable hips: a prospective study of 143 neonates at birth and early follow-up. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;68 :527 –532[Web of Science][Medline]
  66. Lee TW, Skelton RE, Skene C. Routine neonatal examination: effectiveness of trainee paediatrician compared with advanced neonatal nurse practitioner. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001;85 :F100 –F104[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Fiddian NJ, Gardiner JC. Screening for congenital dislocation of the hip by physiotherapists: results of a ten-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76 :458 –459
  68. Krikler SJ, Dwyer NS. Comparison of results of two approaches to hip screening in infants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74 :701 –703
  69. Hansson G, Romanus B, Scheller S. Pitfalls of early diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1988;107 :129 –135[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  70. Bialik V, Bialik GM, Wiener F. Prevention of overtreatment of neonatal hip dysplasia by the use of ultrasonography. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1998;7 :39 –42[Web of Science][Medline]
  71. Andersson JE. Neonatal hip instability: results and experiences from ten years of screening with the anterior-dynamic ultrasound method. Acta Paediatr. 2002;91 :926 –929[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  72. Giannakopoulou C, Aligizakis A, Korakaki E, et al. Neonatal screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip on the maternity wards in Crete, Greece: correlation to risk factors. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2002;29 :148 –152[Medline]
  73. Palmén K. Prevention of congenital dislocation of the hip. The Swedish experience of neonatal treatment of hip joint instability. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1984;208 :1 –107[Medline]
  74. Graf R. Fundamentals of sonographic diagnosis of infant hip dysplasia. J Pediatr Orthop. 1984;4 :735 –740[Web of Science][Medline]
  75. Bar-On E, Meyer S, Harari G, Porat S. Ultrasonography of the hip in developmental hip dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80 :321 –324
  76. Rosendahl K, Aslaksen A, Lie RT, Markestad T. Reliability of ultrasound in the early diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip. Pediatr Radiol. 1995;25 :219 –224[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  77. Dias JJ, Thomas IH, Lamont AC, Mody BS, Thompson JR. The reliability of ultrasonographic assessment of neonatal hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75 :479 –482
  78. Holen KJ, Tegnander A, Bredland T, et al. Universal or selective screening of the neonatal hip using ultrasound? A prospective, randomised trial of 15,529 newborn infants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84 :886 –890
  79. Elbourne D, Dezateux C, Arthur R, et al. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of developmental hip dysplasia (UK Hip Trial): clinical and economic results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360 :2009 –2017[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  80. Paton RW, Srinivasan MS, Shah B, Hollis S. Ultrasound screening for hips at risk in developmental dysplasia: is it worth it? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81 :255 –258
  81. Riboni G, Bellini A, Serantoni S, Rognoni E, Bisanti L. Ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Pediatr Radiol. 2003;33 :475 –481[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  82. Rosenberg N, Bialik V, Norman D, Blazer S. The importance of combined clinical and sonographic examination of instability of the neonatal hip. Int Orthop. 1998;22 :185 –188[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  83. Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT. Developmental dysplasia of the hip: a population-based comparison of ultrasound and clinical findings. Acta Paediatr. 1996;85 :64 –69[Web of Science][Medline]
  84. Moore FH. Examining infants' hips: can it do harm? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71 :4 –5
  85. Jones DA. Neonatal hip stability and the Barlow test: a study in stillborn babies. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73 :216 –218
  86. Chow YW, Turner I, Kernohan WG, Mollan RA. Measurement of the forces and movements involved in neonatal hip testing. Med Eng Phys. 1994;16 :181 –187[Web of Science][Medline]
  87. Andersson JE. Neonatal hip instability: normal values for physiological movement of the femoral head determined by an anterior-dynamic ultrasound method. J Pediatr Orthop. 1995;15 :736 –740[Web of Science][Medline]
  88. Bone CM, Hsieh GH. The risk of carcinogenesis from radiographs to pediatric orthopaedic patients. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20 :251 –254[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  89. Bunker JP, Barnes BA, Mosteller F, eds. Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Surgery. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1977
  90. Dezateux C, Brown J, Arthur R, Karnon J, Parnaby A. Performance, treatment pathways, and effects of alternative policy options for screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the United Kingdom. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88 :753 –759[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  91. Aksoy MC, Ozkoc G, Alanay A, Yazici M, Ozdemir N, Surat A. Treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip before walking: results of closed reduction and immobilization in hip spica cast. Turk J Pediatr. 2002;44 :122 –127[Web of Science][Medline]
  92. Cashman JP, Round J, Taylor G, Clarke NM. The natural history of developmental dysplasia of the hip after early supervised treatment in the Pavlik harness: a prospective, longitudinal follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84 :418 –425
  93. Danielsson L. Late-diagnosed DDH: a prospective 11-year follow-up of 71 consecutive patients (75 hips). Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71 :232 –242[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  94. Eidelman M, Katzman A, Freiman S, Peled E, Bialik V. Treatment of true developmental dysplasia of the hip using Pavlik's method. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2003;12 :253 –258[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  95. Konigsberg DE, Karol LA, Colby S, O'Brien S. Results of medial open reduction of the hip in infants with developmental dislocation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 2003;23 :1 –9[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  96. Gregersen HN. Congenital dislocation of the hip: results of early treatment. Acta Orthop Scand. 1969;40 :53 –61[Web of Science][Medline]
  97. Malvitz TA, Weinstein SL. Closed reduction for congenital dysplasia of the hip: functional and radiographic results after an average of thirty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76 :1777 –1792[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  98. O'Hara JN, Bernard AA, Dwyer NS. Early results of medial approach open reduction in congenital dislocation of the hip: use before walking age. J Pediatr Orthop. 1988;8 :288 –294[Web of Science][Medline]
  99. Sosna A, Rejholec M. Ludloff's open reduction of the hip: long-term results. J Pediatr Orthop. 1992;12 :603 –606[Web of Science][Medline]
  100. Tegnander A, Holen KJ, Anda S, Terjesen T. Good results after treatment with the Frejka pillow for hip dysplasia in newborns: a 3-year to 6-year follow-up study. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2001;10 :173 –179[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  101. Tumer Y, Ward WT, Grudziak J. Medial open reduction in the treatment of developmental dislocation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 1997;17 :176 –180[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  102. Yamada N, Maeda S, Fujii G, Kita A, Funayama K, Kokubun S. Closed reduction of developmental dislocation of the hip by prolonged traction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85 :1173 –1177
  103. Yoshitaka T, Mitani S, Aoki K, Miyake A, Inoue H. Long-term follow-up of congenital subluxation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21 :474 –480[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  104. Wedge JH, Wasylenko MJ. The natural history of congenital disease of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979;61 -B:334–338
  105. Wenger DR, Frick SL. Early surgical correction of residual hip dysplasia: the San Diego Children's Hospital approach. Acta Orthop Belg. 1999;65 :277 –287[Medline]
  106. Cooperman DR, Wallensten R, Stulberg SD. Post-reduction avascular necrosis in congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62 :247 –258[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  107. Schwend RM, Pratt WB, Fultz J. Untreated acetabular dysplasia of the hip in the Navajo: a 34 year case series followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(364):108–116
  108. Pratt WB, Freiberger RH, Arnold WD. Untreated congenital hip dysplasia in the Navajo. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;(162):69–77
  109. Mladenov K, Dora C, Wicart P, Seringe R. Natural history of hips with borderline acetabular index and acetabular dysplasia in infants. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002;22 :607 –612[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  110. Szepesi K, Biro B, Fazekas K, Szucs G. Preliminary results of early open reduction by an anterior approach for congenital dislocation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1995;4 :171 –178[Web of Science][Medline]
  111. Castillo R, Sherman FC. Medial adductor open reduction for congenital dislocation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10 :335 –340[Web of Science][Medline]
  112. Kruczynski J. Avascular necrosis of the proximal femur in developmental dislocation of the hip: incidence, risk factors, sequelae and MR imaging for diagnosis and prognosis. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1996;268 :1 –48[Medline]
  113. Maxwell SL, Ruiz AL, Lappin KJ, Cosgrove AP. Clinical screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in Northern Ireland. BMJ. 2002;324 :1031 –1033[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  114. Bicimoglu A, Agus H, Omeroglu H, Tumer Y. Six years of experience with a new surgical algorithm in developmental dysplasia of the hip in children under 18 months of age. J Pediatr Orthop. 2003;23 :693 –698[Web of Science][Medline]
  115. Takahashi I. Functional treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip using Pavlik harness (Riemenbugel). Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi. 1985;59 :973 –984[Medline]
  116. Severin E. Contribution to the knowledge of congenital dislocation of the hip: late results of closed reduction and arthrographic studies of recent cases. Acta Chir Scand. 1941;84 (suppl 63):1–142
  117. Smith WS, Badgley CE, Orwig JB, Harper JM. Correlation of postreduction roentgenograms and thirty-one-year follow-up in congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1968;50 :1081 –1098[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  118. Ali AM, Angliss R, Fujii G, Smith DM, Benson MK. Reliability of the Severin classification in the assessment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2001;10 :293 –297[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  119. Ward WT, Vogt M, Grudziak JS, Tumer Y, Cook PC, Fitch RD. Severin classification system for evaluation of the results of operative treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip: a study of intraobserver and interobserver reliability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79 :656 –663[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  120. McHale KA, Corbett D. Parental noncompliance with Pavlik harness treatment of infantile hip problems. J Pediatr Orthop. 1989;9 :649 –652[Web of Science][Medline]
  121. Brougham DI, Broughton NS, Cole WG, Menelaus MB. Avascular necrosis following closed reduction of congenital dislocation of the hip: review of influencing factors and long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72 :557 –562
  122. Buchanan JR, Greer RB 3rd, Cotler JM. Management strategy for prevention of avascular necrosis during treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63 :140 –146[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  123. Grill F, Bensahel H, Canadell J, Dungl P, Matasovic T, Vizkelety T. The Pavlik harness in the treatment of congenital dislocating hip: report on a multicenter study of the European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society. J Pediatr Orthop. 1988;8 :1 –8[Web of Science][Medline]
  124. Lennox IA, McLauchlan J, Murali R. Failures of screening and management of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75 :72 –75
  125. Pool RD, Foster BK, Paterson DC. Avascular necrosis in congenital hip dislocation: the significance of splintage. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68 :427 –430
  126. Powell EN, Gerratana FJ, Gage JR. Open reduction for congenital hip dislocation: the risk of avascular necrosis with three different approaches. J Pediatr Orthop. 1986;6 :127 –132[Web of Science][Medline]
  127. Suzuki S, Seto Y, Futami T, Kashiwagi N. Preliminary traction and the use of under-thigh pillows to prevent avascular necrosis of the femoral head in Pavlik harness treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Orthop Sci. 2000;5 :540 –545[CrossRef][Medline]
  128. Thomas IH, Dunin AJ, Cole WG, Menelaus MB. Avascular necrosis after open reduction for congenital dislocation of the hip: analysis of causative factors and natural history. J Pediatr Orthop. 1989;9 :525 –531[Web of Science][Medline]
  129. Weiner DS. Avascular necrosis as a treatment complication in congenital dislocation of the hip in children under one year of age. Isr J Med Sci. 1980;16 :301 –306[Web of Science][Medline]
  130. Standen PJ. The long-term psychological adjustment of children treated for congenital dislocation of the hip. Psychol Med. 1983;13 :847 –854[Web of Science][Medline]
  131. Brown J, Dezateux C, Karnon J, Parnaby A, Arthur R. Efficiency of alternative policy options for screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the United Kingdom. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88 :760 –766[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  132. Bralic I, Vrdoljak J, Kovacic L. Ultrasound screening of the neonatal hip: cost-benefit analysis. Croat Med J. 2001;42 :171 –174[Web of Science][Medline]
  133. Clegg J, Bache CE, Raut VV. Financial justification for routine ultrasound screening of the neonatal hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81 :852 –857
  134. Faure C, Schmit P, Salvat D. Cost-benefit evaluation of systematic radiological diagnosis of congenital dislocated hip. Pediatr Radiol. 1984;14 :407 –412[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  135. Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT, Sudmann E, Geitung JT. Cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149 :643 –648[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  136. Geitung JT, Rosendahl K, Sudmann E. Cost-effectiveness of ultrasonographic screening for congenital hip dysplasia in new-borns. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25 :251 –254[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2006 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 AAP Grand RoundsHome page
R. M. Schwend
What Is the Optimal Strategy To Screen for Hip Dysplasia?
AAP Grand Rounds, October 1, 2009; 22(4): 37 - 37.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. T. Mahan, J. N. Katz, and Y.-J. Kim
To Screen or Not to Screen? A Decision Analysis of the Utility of Screening for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2009; 91(7): 1705 - 1719.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
AIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of an Ultrasound Examination for Detection and Assessment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2009; 28(1): 114 - 119.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
K Green and S Oddie
The value of the postnatal examination in improving child health
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., September 1, 2008; 93(5): F389 - F393.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Evid. Based Med.Home page
R. Lehman
Evidently...
Evid. Based Med., August 1, 2006; 11(4): 102 - 102.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Evid. Based Med.Home page
Other articles noted
Evid. Based Med., August 1, 2006; 11(4): 127 - 128.
[Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

A Systematic review with a blind eye?
Ruediger von Kries
Pediatrics Online, 29 May 2006 [Full text]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shipman, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Yawn, B. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Shipman, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Yawn, B. P.
Related Collections
Right arrow Musculoskeletal System
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?