Does Screening Ultrasound Timing in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Need to be Adjusted for Moderate Preterm and Near-term Infants: A Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: An initial screening ultrasound is essential for patients at higher risk of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) due to breech presentation or a family history of DDH. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening ultrasounds to be performed after 6 weeks of age to reduce the rate of false positives. However, there is limited evidence regarding whether these screening ultrasounds need to be adjusted for gestational age in prematurity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of moderate preterm and near-term births on screening hip ultrasounds for high-risk DDH populations. METHODS: We identified all prospectively enrolled patients in a single-center database referred for screening hip ultrasound for DDH. We included those hips referred for risk factors of DDH, including breech presentation, family history of DDH, or hip click, and excluded those with known dysplasia or referral for hip instability. Each ultrasound was measured by a pediatric radiologist to determine the alpha angle and femoral head coverage. Patients were classified as "premature" if born at <37 weeks gestation or "full term" if born at ≥37 weeks gestation. All patients underwent screening hip ultrasound between 5 and 8 weeks of age. Sonographic markers of dysplasia and the incidences of abnormal ultrasound and Pavlik harness treatment were compared between cohorts. Significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 244 hips in 122 patients were included, 58 hips in the premature cohort and 186 hips in the full-term cohort. The premature cohort had a significantly decreased gestational age compared with the full-term cohort (35.4 ± 1.1 vs 38.5 ± 1.1 wk, respectively, P < 0.001). However, there was no difference between premature and full-term cohorts in sex distribution (69% vs 75%, females, P = 0.39), unadjusted age at the time of ultrasound (6.6 ± 0.7 vs 6.8±0.7 wk, respectively, P = 0.07), or referral reason ( P = 0.14). On hip ultrasound, there was no difference between premature and full-term cohorts with respect to alpha angle (62.6 ± 3.3 vs 62.2 ± 5.3 degrees, P = 0.41), femoral head coverage (54.9 ± 6.3 vs 55.1 ± 10.6, P = 0.19), rate of abnormal ultrasound (18.3% vs 20.7%, respectively, P = 0.68), or the rate of Pavlik harness treatment (0% vs 5.3%, respectively, P = 0.12). DISCUSSION: There was no significant difference in alpha angle or femoral head coverage between premature and full-term patients at 5 to 8 weeks of unadjusted age. This preliminary data suggests that screening ultrasounds can be performed without adjusting for prematurity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Does brace treatment following closed reduction of developmental dysplasia of the hip improve acetabular coverage?

Aims: Abduction bracing is commonly used to treat developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) following closed reduction and spica casting, with little evidence to support or refute this practice. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of abduction bracing after closed reduction in improving acetabular index (AI) and reducing secondary surgery for residual hip dysplasia. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients treated with closed reduction for DDH at a single tertiary referral centre. Demographic data were obtained including severity of dislocation based on the International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) classification, age at reduction, and casting duration. Patients were prescribed no abduction bracing, part-time, or full-time wear post-reduction and casting. AI measurements were obtained immediately upon cast removal and from two- and four-year follow-up radiographs. Results: A total of 243 hips underwent closed reduction and 82% (199/243) were treated with abduction bracing. There was no difference between those treated with or without bracing with regard to sex, age at reduction, severity of dislocation, spica duration, or immediate post-casting AI (all p > 0.05). There was no difference in hips treated with or without abduction brace with regard to AI at two years post-reduction (32.4° (SD 5.3°) vs 30.9° (SD 4.6°), respectively; p = 0.099) or at four years post-reduction (26.4° (SD 5.2°) vs 25.4° (SD 5.1°), respectively; p = 0.231). Multivariate analysis revealed only IHDI grade predicted AI at two years post-reduction (p = 0.004). There was no difference in overall rate of secondary surgery for residual dysplasia between hips treated with or without bracing (32% vs 39%, respectively; p = 0.372). However, there was an increased risk of early secondary surgery (< two years post-reduction) in the non-braced group (11.4% vs 2.5%; p = 0.019). Conclusion: Abduction bracing following closed reduction for DDH treatment is not associated with decreased residual dysplasia at two or four years post-reduction but may reduce rates of early secondary surgery. A prospective study is indicated to provide more definitive recommendations.

Abduction Bracing Following Anterior Open Reduction for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Does Not Improve Residual Dysplasia or Reduce Secondary Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Abduction bracing is commonly used following open reduction and spica casting of developmental dysplasia of the hip. However, there is little evidence to support or refute this practice that carries associated cost and burden for families. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of abduction bracing after open reduction in improving the acetabular dysplasia and reducing the rate of secondary surgery for residual dysplasia. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients treated with open reduction at a single tertiary referral center. Demographic data, severity of dislocation [International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) class], age at reduction, and casting duration were obtained. Patients were prescribed no bracing, part-time (≤18 h/d), or full-time (≥20 h/d) brace wear based on surgeon preference. Acetabular index (AI) measurements were obtained at cast removal and at 2- and 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 146 hips underwent open reduction with 61% (89/146) of hips treated with abduction bracing. There was no difference between braced and nonbraced cohorts with regards to sex, age at time of reduction, dislocation severity, cast duration, immediate postcasting AI, or incidence of medial open reduction. There was no difference in hips treated with or without brace following open reduction with regards to AI at 2 years postreduction (31.8±6.7 vs. 30.4±6.1 degrees, P =0.27) or at 4 years postreduction (24.9±6.5 vs. 24.7±6.5 degrees, P =0.97). However, further analysis showed lower mean AI at 2-year follow-up for braced versus nonbraced patients following medial open reduction (30.0±5.7 vs. 34.5±7.0 degrees, P =0.02). This difference was no longer present at 4-year follow-up (26.6±6.8 vs. 24.2±6.6 degrees, P =0.44). However, 4/19 (21%) nonbraced hips underwent secondary surgery for residual dysplasia and were consequently excluded from the AI measurement at 4 years postreduction (compared with 4/39 [10%] braced hips within the same time period). There was no difference in the rate of secondary surgery between braced and nonbraced hips (30% vs. 33%, respectively, P =0.70). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that neither IHDI classification, bracing, nor age at reduction predicted residual dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Abduction bracing following anterior open reduction for developmental dysplasia of the hip is not associated with decreased residual dysplasia at 2/4 years postreduction or with decreased secondary surgery. These results suggest that abduction bracing following anterior open reduction may not provide clinical benefit. However, abduction bracing may be beneficial following medial open reduction. A prospective study is necessary to provide more definitive recommendations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-therapeutic study.

The Significance of Isolated Hip Click as a Sign of DDH: Implications on Referral Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of an isolated hip click remains unclear. The rates of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in those referred for hip click vary from 0% to 28%. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of DDH in patients prospectively referred for isolated hip click. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients referred to a single pediatric orthopaedic center with concern for DDH secondary to isolated hip click felt by the pediatrician on examination. Patients with known sonographic abnormalities or risk factors for DDH (breech presentation or positive family history) were excluded. Ultrasounds were obtained upon initial presentation and defined as abnormal if alpha angle <60 degrees and/or femoral head coverage (FHC) <50%. Mild dysplasia, analogous to Graf IIa physiological immaturity, was defined as alpha angle 50<α<60 and/or <50% FHC in a patient <3 months age. Severe dysplasia was defined as ≤33% FHC, which has been proposed to be sonographically consistent with a hip dislocation. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five children were referred for isolated hip click. One hundred eighty-nine patients (74%) had normal ultrasound whereas 66 patients (26%) had sonographic abnormalities (mean age 6.5±6.2 wk at initial ultrasound). Fifty patients (19.6%) demonstrated physiological immaturity, 3 patients (1.2%) demonstrated moderate sonographic dysplasia, and 13 patients (5.1%) had sonographic findings consistent with severe dysplasia or dislocated hip. Hips with severe dysplasia were younger than the remaining population (2.8±2.4 wk vs. 6.6±6.2 wk, P <0.001) with no difference in sex distribution ( P =0.07) or first-born birth order ( P =0.36). For those with sonographic abnormality, 18 (27%) patients were treated with Pavlik harness, 1 (2%) was treated with abduction orthosis, and the remainder (71%) were observed for resolution of physiological immaturity. CONCLUSIONS: Infants with isolated hip click identified by their pediatrician may have higher rates of dysplasia than previously reported. We recommend screening ultrasound and/or orthopaedic referral for all infants with isolated hip click. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-prospective prognostic study.