Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 219–224 | Cite as

Reliability of ultrasound in the early diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip

  • K. Rosendahl
  • A. Aslaksen
  • R. T. Lie
  • T. Markestad


The purpose of this study was to determine inter-and intra-observer agreement in assessing hip morphology and stability by ultrasound. Three groups of infants, of 206, 74 and 78 newborns respectively, were examined. Morphology was classified into four categories (normal, immature, minor dysplastic and major dysplastic) according to subjective assessment, objective measurement (of the acetabular inclination angle α) or a combination of the two. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was determined for reading of recorded ultrasound scans, and for examination (recording plus reading of the scans). Hip stability was subjectively classified as stable, unstable, dislocatable or disclocated, and inter-observer agreement was determined. There was a high degree of agreement for morphological classification based on repeated readings of recorded scans by the same observer (206 infants, κ=0.7 and 0.8 for the two observers, respectively) while the degree of agreement between observers was moderate (κ=0.5). The agreement between observers for repeated readings and recordings was moderate when based on a subjective classification (κ=0.5). Adding the α angle did not improve agreement. There was a moderate inter-observer agreement in determining hip stability (70 infants, κ=0.4). The authors concluded that a high degree of inter-and intra-observer agreement in classifying hip morphology may be obtained for the reading of recorded ultrasound scans. Inter- and intra-observer agreement in producing the scans is poorer than for reading. To obtain a high degree of inter-observer agreement in assessing hip morphology and stability in the newborn, substantial training, attention to details in the technique, and evaluation of results are necessary.


Public Health Early Diagnosis Objective Measurement Inclination Angle Subjective Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Graf R (1980) Diagnosis of congenital hip-joint dislocation by the ultrasound compound treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 97: 117–133PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novick G, Ghelman B, Schneider M (1983) Sonography of the neonatal and infant hip. AJR 141: 639–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harcke HT, Clarcke NMP, Lee MS, Borns PF, MacEwen GD (1984) Examination of the infant hip with real-time ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 3: 131–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zieger M, Hilpert S, Schulz RD (1986) Ultrasound of the infant hip. I. Basic principles. Pediatr Radiol 16: 483–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graf R (1989) Sonographie der Säuglingshüfte: ein Kompendium, 3rd edn. Enke, Stuttgart, pp 20, 90–91, 98–99Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomes H, Menanteau B, Motte J, Robiliard P (1987) Sonography of the neonatal hip: a dynamic approach. Ann Radiol (Paris) 30: 503–510Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlström H, Öberg L, Friberg S (1986) Sonography in CDH. Acta Orthop Scand 57: 402–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT (1992) Congenital dislocation of the hip: a prospective study comparing ultrasound and clinical examination. Acta Paediatr 81: 177–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT (1992) Ultrasound in the early diagnosis of congenital dislocation of the hip: the significance of hip stability versus acetabular morphology. Pediatr Radiol 22: 430–433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT (1994) Ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the neonate: the effect on treatment rate and prevalence of late cases. Pediatrics 14: 47–52Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langer R (1987) Ultrasonic investigation of the hip in newborns in the diagnosis of congenital hip dislocation: classification and results of a screening programme. Skeletal Radiol 16: 275–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorn U, Hattwick M (1987) Sonographisches Hüftscreening bei Neugeborenen. Ultraschall Klin Prax 2: 159–164Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganger R, Grill F, Leodolter S, Vitek M (1991) Ultraschallscreening der Neugeborenenhüfte: Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen. Ultraschall in Med 12: 25–30Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 266, 403–405Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schluchter MD (1990) Unbalanced repeated measures models with structured covariance matrices. In: Dixon WJ (ed) BMDP Statistical Software Manual, vol 2, University of California Press, Berkley, pp 1207–1244Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dias JJ, Thomas H, Lamont AC, Mody BS, Thompson JR (1993) The reliability of ultrasonographic assessment of neonatal hips. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 75: 479–482Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zieger M (1986) Ultrasound of the infant hip. 2. Validity of the method. Pediatr Radiol 16: 488–492PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Rosendahl
    • 1
  • A. Aslaksen
    • 1
  • R. T. Lie
    • 2
  • T. Markestad
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric RadiologyUniversity HospitalBergenNorway
  2. 2.Section for Medical Informatics and StatisticsUniversity HospitalBergenNorway
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsUniversity HospitalBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations