Screening for developmental hip dysplasia (DDH)—clinically or sonographically? Comments to the current discussion and proposals
- 829 Downloads
This letter is to outline the position of representatives of the German-speaking countries, particularly from Austria, with regard to screening US for developmental hip dysplasia. This letter is in response to the recommendations on hip screening from the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) task force on developmental hip dysplasia published in 2011 .
There is an increasing debate on how to screen for developmental hip dysplasia. Partially driven by economic reasons, the ESPR proposal has been made to initially rely on clinical findings and potential risk factors such as family history or breech delivery and to only sonographically assess those who have a dislocatable or dislocated hip as well as infants with risk factors (selective screening). This approach is said to help to reduce overtreatment.
The algorithm by the ESPR task force on developmental hip dysplasia has some major restrictions that need to be carefully considered before deciding to omit general and...
KeywordsUniversal Screening Selective Screening Late Manifestation Acetabular Correction Graf Method
- 1.Rosendahl K (2011) European Society of Paediatric Radiology’s task force group on DDH: recommendations on hip screening. (Members: Arthur R, Adamsbaum C, Barber I, Riccabona M, Rosendahl K, Toma P, Treguier C) ESPR newsletter VI, 2011. http://www.espr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207:recommendations-on-hip-screening&catid=131:ddh-taskforce-recommendations&Itemid=41. Accessed 21 November 2012
- 3.Oggier W (2004) The hip sonography screening—some thoughts of health economists. Schweiz Ärzteztg 85:12Google Scholar
- 5.Thallinger C, Grill F, Ganger R (2012) Results of the Austrian ultrasound screening program for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Am J Bone Joint Surg (in review)Google Scholar
- 6.Matthiesen HD (2008) Quality assurance sonography of the infant hip. Kinder und Jugendarzt 39:123–129Google Scholar