Screening in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH)

Paton, R. W.

doi:10.1016/j.surge.2017.05.002

Cited by 78 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4 For children born in 2003-2009, 11.5% of cases were a late diagnosis after three months of age. 4 Current DDH screening practices are criticised for failure to adhere to the general principles of health screening, 8,9 and there is variability in Australian neonatal hip screening guidelines. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This paper presents an evidence-based approach to DDH prevention and early detection using assessment and surveillance, suitable for general practitioners (GPs).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 There is ongoing debate as to whether foot abnormalities and oligohydramnios are truly risk factors. 8 Hip development can be affected postnatally. Tight swaddling of lower limbs in extension and adduction is associated with DDH in epidemiological, anatomical and animal studies.…”

Section: Risk Factors and Prevention Of Ddhmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unilateral decreased hip abduction in babies older than eight weeks suggests a dislocated or subluxated hip with 78.3% sensitivity. 8 Bilateral reduced abduction is more difficult to assess and is a less specific sign. 8 Ortolani and Barlow signs are often stated to be unreliable outside the newborn period but still occur.…”

Section: Optimal Assessment Of Ddh and The Role Of The Gpmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip through general practitioner assessment and surveillance

Williams¹

2018

Aust J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Factors and Prevention Of Ddhmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Optimal Assessment Of Ddh and The Role Of The Gpmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip through general practitioner assessment and surveillance

Williams¹

2018

Aust J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some of the studies showed unreliability of the clinical examination in diagnosing DDH (20,21). Excessive hip abduction is a time-dependent and useful clinical sign in the diagnosis of pathological DDH (22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The predictive value of the clinical sign of excessive hip abduction for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH)

Čustović¹,

Čustović²

2018

Acta Med Sal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To assess the relationship between the clinical sign of excessive hip abduction (abduction of the hip 90 degrees or more) and developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods The research was conducted on 450 newborns in the Neonatal Unit at the Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the Clinic of Orthopedics and Traumatology of the University Clinical Centre, Tuzla, between 30th August 2011 and 30th April 2012. Clinical (degree of hip abduction) and ultrasound examination of all newborns hip were performed using the Graf method on their first day of life. Results Clinical sign of excessive hip abduction showed significant predictive value for DDH. There were 37 (8.2%) newborns with the clinical sign of excessive hip abduction, of which 13 of them had DDH while 24 of them did not have this clinical sign. There were 89 newborns, in the overall sample, with one of the forms of DDH, 13 (12.7%) of them had this clinical sign, while from 324 newborns witouth DDH, 24 (6.9%) had this clinical sign. Excessive hip abduction had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35.1% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 78.5% for DDH. Conclusion Excessive hip abduction is an useful and important clinical sign of DDH. Doctors who perform the first examination of the child after birth, would have to turn their attention to this clinical sign. The newborns with this clinical sign would have to go to an ultrasound examination of the hips for further diagnosis.

show abstract

“…Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is defined as an abnormal anatomic relationship between the femoral head and the acetabulum, referring to a wide spectrum of hip anomalies, from mild developmental abnormalities to frank dislocation. It is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders in children and can cause claudication, hip pain, osteoarthritis, or even loss of function …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using 3‐dimensional ultrasound islice technology for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Geng

Zhan

et al. 2019

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-This study aimed to investigate the reliability of 3-dimensional (3D) ultrasound in screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) by comparing the results with those of 2-dimensional (2D) ultrasound.Methods-One hundred five infants who were younger than 6 months were enrolled in this study. All of the infants underwent 2D and 3D ultrasound scanning for DDH by novices and experts, and the images were graded by a lead expert. The scanning time and image grades were analyzed by Student t tests (P < .05). The consistency of the α angle measurement between the novices and experts was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).Results-The 105 infants included 34 boys and 71 girls. On 2D scanning, there was agreement between the experts about the correct diagnosis, whereas in the novice group, 41 infants had misdiagnoses. There were no misdiagnoses with 3D scanning in either group. In the novice group, the mean image grades AE SD were 4.2 AE 1.3 (2D ultrasound) and 8.1 AE 0.7 (3D ultrasound; P < .05). In the expert group, the mean image grades were 7.4 AE 1.0 (2D ultrasound) and 8.2 AE 1.0 (3D ultrasound; P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the grades for 3D ultrasound (P = .83). The scanning time for 3D ultrasound was shorter than that for 2D ultrasound in both groups (P < .05). In the novice group, the ICC of the α angle between the 2D and 3D ultrasound results was 0.34, and in the expert group, it was 0.92. The ICCs were 0.35 and 0.84, respectively when comparing 2D and 3D ultrasound results in the groups.Conclusions-Three-dimensional ultrasound required less time and showed greater inter-rater reliability than 2D ultrasound for detecting DDH.

show abstract

Screening in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH)

Cited by 78 publications

References 32 publications

Improving early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip through general practitioner assessment and surveillance

Improving early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip through general practitioner assessment and surveillance

The predictive value of the clinical sign of excessive hip abduction for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH)

Using 3‐dimensional ultrasound islice technology for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About