Long-term follow-up of open reduction surgery for developmental dislocation of the hip.

BACKGROUND: We posed 2 questions: what is the long-term result of open reduction surgery in developmental dysplasia of the hip, and is there an age at surgery above which the outcome was too poor to recommend the operation? METHODS: Between 1955 and 1995, 148 patients with 179 dislocated hips had open reduction surgery for developmental dysplasia of the hip (141 anterior and 38 Ludloff medial approaches). We attempted to locate all 148 patients for the follow-up evaluation. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (36%) with 66 hips (37%) were located and participated in the study. These 66 hips represented 34% of the anterior open reductions and 47% of the Ludloff medial reductions. Twenty-two of the 66 hips had Severin IV or worse outcomes and included 7 with total hip arthroplasties and 2 with hip fusions. Age at surgery was significantly lower for Severin I, II, and III, compared with Severin IV and above (P=0.003, 0.001, 0.003) with outcomes deteriorating substantially after age 3. Approximately half of the hips required further surgery for dysplasia. All hips that sustained osseous necrosis had Severin IV or worse outcomes, and hips that redislocated and required revision surgery only achieved Severin I or II ratings 18% of the time. Nine "normal" hips became dysplastic and 3 had pelvic osteotomies as teenagers. Two other normal hips developed osseous necrosis during treatment of the contralateral hip. CONCLUSIONS: Results deteriorate as the age at surgery increases. Osseous necrosis and redislocation predict a poor functional and radiographic result. The "normal" hip may develop insidious dysplasia and also may be injured during treatment of the involved hip. Above age 3, some patients may not have sufficient acetabular growth to remodel a surgically reduced hip. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV--case series.

Measurement of the center edge angle and determination of the Severin classification using digital radiography, computer-assisted measurement tools, and a Severin algorithm: intraobserver and interobserver reliability revisited.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies underscore the poor intraobserver and interobserver reliability of both the center edge angle (CEA) and the Severin classification using plain film measurements. In this study, experienced observers applied a computer-assisted measurement program to determine the CEA in digital pelvic radiographs of adults who had been previously treated for dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Using a teaching aid/algorithm of the Severin classification, the observers then assigned a Severin rating to these hips. Intraobserver and interobserver errors were then calculated on both the CEA measurements and the Severin classifications. METHODS: Four pediatric orthopaedic surgeons and 1 pediatric radiologist calculated the CEAs using the OrthoView TM planning system and then determined the Severin classification on 41 blinded digital pelvic radiographs. The radiographs were evaluated by each examiner twice, with evaluations separated by 2 months. All examiners reviewed a Severin classification algorithm before making their Severin assignments. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability for both the CEA and the Severin classification were calculated using the interclass correlation coefficients and Cohen and Fleiss κ scores, respectively. RESULTS: The intraobserver and interobserver reliability for CEA measurement was moderate to almost perfect. When we separated the Severin classification into 3 clinically relevant groups of good (Severin I and II), dysplastic (Severin III), and poor (Severin IV and above), our interobserver reliability neared almost perfect. CONCLUSION: The Severin classification is an extremely useful and oft-used radiographic measure for the success of DDH treatment. Our research found digital radiography, computer-aided measurement tools, the use of a Severin algorithm, and separating the Severin classification into 3 clinically relevant groups significantly increased the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of both the CEA and Severin classification. This finding will assist future studies using the CEA and Severin classification in the radiographic assessment of DDH treatment outcomes.

Is research presented at the scoliosis research society annual meeting influenced by industry funding?

STUDY DESIGN: All abstracts submitted to the 2006 SRS annual meeting were reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of funding in abstracts submitted for presentation at the 2006 Annual Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) meeting and whether funding produced bias toward a positive outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Financial conflicts of interest have been attributed to bias in research. METHODS: Three members the SRS Program Committee reviewed 610 abstracts submitted for presentation at the 2006 annual meeting. The committee's average grade was correlated with type of funding (industry, professional society, university); abstract conclusions (favorable, unfavorable, or only descriptive); and subject category [adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), motion preservation, etc.]. RESULTS: Of the 610 submitted articles, 72% (n = 440) were unfunded. Of the 170 funded articles, 140 were supported by industry, 7 by government agency, 8 by professional societies, 4 by universities, and 11 by private foundations. There was no statistically significant difference between the reviewers' grades of funded versus unfunded articles (P = 0.39). Comparing AIS articles to all the other categories, the number of funded articles were significantly greater only in motion preservation (P < 0.001) and genetics (P = 0.039). When a consultant/employee relationship was present, there was a significant difference in the proportion of funded articles and favorable findings (P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: The higher percentage of funded articles in motion preservation and genetics compared to AIS articles could reflect a bias in those 2 areas. However, although there were more funded articles in those 2 areas there were not more funded, favorable articles (motion preservation P = 0.059, and genetics P = 0.3). Thus, certain categories attracted more funding than others but there was not a bias toward favorable findings within the funded articles unless the funding was due to a consultant/employee relationship.