Abstract
The aim of this study was to reveal whether a meaningful difference is caused by measuring the alpha angle in hip ultrasonography manually or digitally to help the early diagnosis and treatment of DDH and observe the treatment implications of any such difference. All ultrasound images were obtained by same orthopaedist, and each hip was measured twice by two investigators with different levels of experience. Standard images were taken, and a printout of the standard images were obtained. The alpha angle was measured digitally by using the sonography device. The alpha angle was also measured by pencil, ruler and goniometer on the printout after 2 days. One hundred and two hips of 51 babies, at a mean age of 14 weeks, were assessed. The mean alpha angle measured manually with a goniometer was 64.4° (±1.6°), while that measured on the ultrasonography device was 65.3° (±0.9°). This difference was found to be statistically different (p = 0.016). Typology changes occurred in a total of 10 hips out of 102 as a result of manual and digital measurements. However, this study showed reduction in alpha angle variation and considerable advantages for manual alpha angle measurement with pencil and goniometer on a printout compared to computer-based measurement; future studies are needed to understand these differences caused by each measurement method.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tschauner C, Furntrath F, Saba Y, Berghold A, Radl R (2011) Developmental dysplasia of the hip: impact of sonographic newborn hip screening on the outcome of early treated decentered hip joints-a single center retrospective comparative cohort study based on Graf’s method of hip ultrasonography. J Child Orthop 5(6):415–424
Puhan MA, Woolacott N, Kleijnen J, Steurer J (2003) Observational studies on ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns—a systematic review. Ultraschall Med 24(6):377–382
Graf R (2006) Hip sonography: diagnosis and management of infant hip dysplasia. Springer, Berlin
Herring JA ( 2013) Tachdjian's Pediatric Orthopedics. Dallas, Texas, USA
Copuroglu C, Ozcan M, Aykac B, Tuncer B, Saridogan K (2011) Reliability of ultrasonographic measurements in suspected patients of developmental dysplasia of the hip and correlation with the acetabular index. Indian J Orthop 45(6):553–557
Guille JT, Pizzutillo PD, MacEwen GD (2000) Development dysplasia of the hip from birth to six months. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 8(4):232–242
Chan A, McCaul KA, Cundy PJ, Haan EA, Byron-Scott R (1997) Perinatal risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 76(2):F94–F100
Barlow TG (1963) Early diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. Proc R Soc Med 56:804–806
Barlow TG (1975) Neonatal hip dysplasia–treatment, results and complications. Proc R Soc Med 68(8):475
von Rosen S (1962) Diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip joint in the new-born. J Bone Joint Surg Br 44:284–291
Graf R (1981) The ultrasonic image of the acetabular rim in infants An experimental and clinical investigation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 99(1):35–41
Graf R (1983) New possibilities for the diagnosis of congenital hip joint dislocation by ultrasonography. J Pediatr Orthop 3(3):354–359
Omeroglu H, Bicimoglu A, Koparal S, Seber S (2001) Assessment of variations in the measurement of hip ultrasonography by the Graf method in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B 10(2):89–95
Peterlein CD, Schuttler KF, Timmesfeld N et al (2012) Measurement on printed paper strips or on the ultrasound device with computer assistance—which technique is more accurate in paediatric hip ultrasound? Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie 150(2):163–169
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sariyilmaz, K., Saglam, Y., Ozkunt, O. et al. Differences between the alpha angles measured manually and digitally from paediatric hip ultrasonograms. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25, 885–888 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1630-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1630-5