Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 415–419 | Cite as

Clinical examination versus ultrasonography in detecting developmental dysplasia of the hip

  • H. DogruelEmail author
  • H. Atalar
  • O. Y. Yavuz
  • U. Sayli
Original Paper

Abstract

Although hip ultrasonography is gaining acceptance as the most effective method for the early diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip, there is still some controversy regarding the use of ultrasonography as a screening method. The purpose of this study was to investigate prospectively the capacity of clinical examination findings and associated risk factors to detect developmental dysplasia of the hip defined ultrasonographically in infants. A total of 3,541 infants underwent clinical examination and hip ultrasonography. Measured against ultrasonography as a standard, the sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination were 97% and 13.68%, respectively. Graf type IIb or more severe developmental dysplasia was found in 167 infants (208 hips), at an overall frequency of 4.71%. Graf type IIa physiological immaturity was encountered in 838 hips, and of these, 15 hips (1.78%) developed Graf type IIb dysplasia and underwent treatment. Patient characteristics that were found to be significant risk factors were swaddling use, female gender, breech delivery and positive family history. Given its low specificity, our findings suggest that clinical examination does not reliably detect ultrasonographically defined developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants being screened for this disease.

Keywords

Positive Family History Oligohydramnios Developmental Dysplasia Breech Delivery Clinical Examination Finding 
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.

Résumé

Si l’échographie est une méthode efficace pour le diagnostic précoce des dysplasie ou des luxations de hanches, son utilisation comme méthode de dépistage est controversée. Le propos de cette étude est de réaliser une étude prospective de cet examen à partir de patients présentant des facteurs de risques et d’un examen clinique (3,541 enfants). La sensibilité et la spécificité de l’examen clinique a été respectivement de 97% et 13.68%. Cent soixante-sept enfants (208 hanches) présentaient soit un type IIb de Graf ou une atteinte plus sévère soit 4.71%. Une hanche immature avec un type IIa de Graf a été présente dans 838 hanches, 15 d’entre-elles (1.78%) évoluant vers le type IIb et nécessitant un traitement. Les facteurs de risques utilisés ont été les suivants : sexe féminin, antécédent, siège. Du fait de cette spécificité basse de l’examen, nous pensons que l’examen clinique ne permet pas de mettre en évidence de façon certaine les stades de dysphonies détectés à l’échographie de la hanche chez les enfants ainsi dépistés.

References

  1. 1.
    Atalar H, Sayli U, Yavuz OY, Uras I, Dogruel H (2006) Indicators of successful use of the Pavlik harness in infants with developmental dysplasia of the hip. Int Orthop Apr 7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barlow TG (1962) Early diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 44B:292–301Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelein RM, Sauter AJ, de Vlieger M, van Linge B (1992) Natural history of ultrasound hip abnormalities in clinically normal newborns. J Pediatr Orthop 12:423–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke NM, Clegg J, Al-Chalabi AN (1989) Ultrasound screening of hips at risk for CDH. Failure to reduce the incidence of late cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graf R (1980) The diagnosis of congenital hip-joint dislocation by the ultrasonic Combound treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 97:117–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graf R (1984) Classification of hip joint dysplasia by means of sonography. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 102:248–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harcke HT, Kumar SJ (1991) The role of ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:622–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jomha NM, McIvor J, Sterling G (1995) Ultrasonography in developmental hip dysplasia. J Pediatr Orthop 15:101–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krismer M, Klestil T, Morscher M, Eggl H (1996) The effect of ultrasonographic screening on the incidence of developmental dislocation of the hip. Int Orthop 20:80–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kutlu A, Memik R, Mutlu M, Kutlu R, Arslan A (1992) Congenital dislocation of the hip and its relation to swaddling used in Turkey. J Pediatr Orthop 12:598–602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marks DS, Clegg J, al-Chalabi AN (1994) Routine ultrasound screening for neonatal hip instability. Can it abolish late-presenting congenital dislocation of the hip? J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:534–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Omeroglu H, Koparal S (2001) The role of clinical examination and risk factors in the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip: a prospective study in 188 referred young infants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 121:7–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ortolani M (1976) Congenital hip dysplasia in the light of early and very early diagnosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 119:6–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palmen K (1984) Prevention of congenital dislocation of the hip. The Swedish experience of neonatal treatment of hip joint instability. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 208:1–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paton RW, Srinivasan MS, Shah B, Hollis S (1999) Ultrasound screening for hips at risk in developmental dysplasia. Is it worth it? J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:255–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riboni G, Bellini A, Serantoni S, Rognoni E, Bisanti L (2003) Ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Pediatr Radiol 33:475–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenberg N, Bialik V, Norman D, Blazer S (1998) The importance of combined clinical and sonographic examination of instability of the neonatal hip. Int Orthop 22:185–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smaill GB (1968) Congenital dislocation of the hip in the newborn. J Bone Joint Surg Br 50:525–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuler P, Feltes E, Kienapfel H, Griss P (1990) Ultrasound examination for the early determination of dysplasia and congenital dislocation of neonatal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 258:18–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sucato DJ, Johnston CE 2nd, Birch JG, Herring JA, Mack P (1999) Outcome of ultrasonographic hip abnormalities in clinically stable hips. J Pediatr Orthop 19:754–759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonnis D, Storch K, Ulbrich H (1990) Results of newborn screening for CDH with and without sonography and correlation of risk factors. J Pediatr Orthop 10:145–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ucar DH, Isiklar ZU, Kandemir U, Tumer Y (2004) Treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip with Pavlik harness: prospective study in Graf type IIc or more severe hips. J Pediatr Orthop B 13:70–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wientroub S, Grill F (2000) Ultrasonography in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:1004–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wirth T, Stratmann L, Hinrichs F (2004) Evolution of late presenting developmental dysplasia of the hip and associated surgical procedures after 14 years of neonatal ultrasound screening. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:585–589PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryGüven HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryFatih UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryA KlinikAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations