ABSTRACT
Early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is associated with improved outcomes of conservative treatment. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate a novel screening programme that included both the primary risk factors of breech presentation and family history, and the secondary risk factors of oligohydramnios and foot deformities. A five-year prospective registry study investigating every live birth in the study's catchment area (n = 27,731), all of whom underwent screening for risk factors and examination at the newborn and six- to eight-week neonatal examination and review. DDH was diagnosed using ultrasonography and the Graf classification system, defined as grade IIb or above or rapidly regressing IIa disease (≥4o at four weeks follow-up). Multivariate odds ratios were calculated to establish significant association, and risk differences were calculated to provide quantifiable risk increase with DDH, positive predictive value was used as a measure of predictive efficacy. The cost-effectiveness of using these risk factors to predict DDH was evaluated using NHS tariffs (January 2021). The prevalence of DDH that required treatment within our population was 5/1,000 live births. The rate of missed presentation of DDH was 0.43/1000 live births. Breech position, family history, oligohydramnios, and foot deformities demonstrated significant association with DDH (p < 0.0001). The presence of breech presentation increased the risk of DDH by 1.69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93% to 2.45%), family history by 3.57% (95% CI 2.06% to 5.09%), foot deformities by 8.95% (95% CI 4.81% to 13.1%), and oligohydramnios nby 11.6% (95 % CI 3.0% to 19.0%). Primary risk factors family history and breech presentation demonstrated an estimated cost-per-case detection of £6,276 and £11,409, respectively. Oligohydramnios and foot deformities demonstrated a cost-per-case detected less than the cost of primary risk factors of £2,260 and £2,670, respectively. The inclusion of secondary risk factors within a national screening programme was clinically successful as they were more cost and resource-efficient predictors of DDH than primary risk factors, suggesting they should be considered in the national guidance.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. METHODS: This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a "poor" understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. CONCLUSION: There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549-556.
