Ultrasonographic screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip: the Graf method revisited.

Until the 1980s, the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) was based on clinical examination and radiographic imaging. In 1980, Reinhard Graf developed his own ultrasonographic method for the examination of the infant hip joint. Graf's method evaluates the osseous and cartilaginous coverage of the femoral head by the acetabulum in the infantile hip joint by measuring the angles α and ß. The validity of Graf method is that with these measurements the hip joint is further classified by Graf classification into types I to IV that guide treatment. Currently, Graf method is considered the gold standard examination for the diagnosis of DDH in many European countries. This review article aims to discuss the incidence, risk factors and pathophysiology of DDH, and to emphasize on the Graf method for the evaluation, classification, prevention and further management of this entity.

The risk of DDH between breech and cephalic-delivered neonates using Graf ultrasonography.

PURPOSE: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorder in infants. The most significant risk factors include female gender, breech presentation, left hip and family history. In this study, we utilized the Graf method at different time intervals to evaluate both breech-delivered and cephalic-born newborns. The objectives were to compare the incidence of DDH in cephalic and breech-delivered neonates and investigate whether the hip joints of neonates delivered in the breech position exhibit a distinct maturation pattern. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied prospectively 618 hip joints (309 newborns). Each hip joint was examined with the Graf method in four time periods as follows: Phase #1 (0-1 weeks), Phase #2 (1-4 weeks), Phase #3 (4-7 weeks), and Phase #4 (7-10 weeks). The α and ß angles for each hip joint were measured, and the hips were classified according to Graf classification. With our statistical analysis within the different phases, we were able to investigate potential variations in the maturation patterns between newborns delivered in the breech and cephalic delivery positions. RESULTS: A significant difference (at the 5% level) was observed in Phase 1 between breech and cephalic-delivered neonates (35.6-8.6%). This difference tended to decrease in next phases (13.6-1% in Phase 2, 2.5-0% in Phase 3 and 1.7-0% in Phase 4). A significant difference (at the 5% level) for cephalic-delivered neonates was also observed between Phase 1 and Phase 4 (8.5-0%), but the percentages were low. Additionally, the breech-delivered had extreme difference in incidence of DDH from Phase 1 to Phase 4 (35.6-11.9%, 2.5%, and 1.7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: It appears that there is an actual difference in the incidence of DDH between breech-delivered and cephalic-delivered neonates, although the difference may be less significant than previously considered. The majority of the breech-delivered neonates that were initially considered as pathological (Phase 1) are, in fact, healthy. This is ascertained in subsequent ultrasound examinations conducted in later phases (Phases 2-4), when the incidence of pathological cases decreases. This could be attributed to potential different maturation pattern between these groups.