Reliability of ultrasound in the early diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip
- 130 Downloads
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.
KeywordsPublic Health Early Diagnosis Objective Measurement Inclination Angle Subjective Assessment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Graf R (1989) Sonographie der Säuglingshüfte: ein Kompendium, 3rd edn. Enke, Stuttgart, pp 20, 90–91, 98–99Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 12.Dorn U, Hattwick M (1987) Sonographisches Hüftscreening bei Neugeborenen. Ultraschall Klin Prax 2: 159–164Google Scholar
- 13.Ganger R, Grill F, Leodolter S, Vitek M (1991) Ultraschallscreening der Neugeborenenhüfte: Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen. Ultraschall in Med 12: 25–30Google Scholar
- 14.Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 266, 403–405Google Scholar
- 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.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