International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 631–640 | Cite as

Acetabular index is the best predictor of late residual acetabular dysplasia after closed reduction in developmental dysplasia of the hip

  • YiQiang Li
  • YueMing Guo
  • Ming Li
  • QingHe Zhou
  • Yuanzhong Liu
  • WeiDong Chen
  • JingChun Li
  • Federico Canavese
  • HongWen XuEmail author
  • Multi-center Pediatric Orthopedic Study Group of China
Original Paper



Our objective was to find the best predictor of late residual acetabular dysplasia in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) after closed reduction (CR) and discuss the indications for secondary surgery.


We retrospectively reviewed the records of 89 patients with DDH (mean age 16.1 ± 4.6 months; 99 hips) who were treated by CR. Hips were divided into three groups according to final outcomes: satisfactory, unsatisfactory and operation. The changes in the acetabular index (AI), centre-edge angle of Wiberg (CEA), Reimer’s index (RI) and centre-head distance discrepancy (CHDD) over time among groups were compared. The power of predictors for late residual acetabular dysplasia of AI, CEA, RI and CHDD at different time points was analysed by logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine cutoff values and corresponding sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for these parameters.


Both AI and CEA improved in all groups of patients following CR. In the satisfactory group, AI progressively decreased until seven to eight years, while CEA increased until nine to ten years (P < 0.05). In the unsatisfactory group, AI and CEA ceased to improve three and two years after CR, respectively (P < 0.05). CEA and RI were significantly better in the satisfactory group compared with the unsatisfactory group at all time points (P < 0.05). Following CR, both RI and CHDD remained stable over time in all groups. Final outcome following CR could be predicted by AI, CEA and RI at all time points (P < 0.01). Cutoff values of AI, CEA and RI were 28.4°, 13.9° and 34.5%, respectively, at one year and 25°, 20° and 27%, respectively, at two to four years post-CR. A total of 80–88% of hips had an unsatisfactory outcome if AI > 28.4° and >25 at one and two to four years following CR, respectively. However, if CEA was less than or RI was larger than the cutoff values at each time point, only 40–60% of hips had an unsatisfactory outcome. Mean sensitivity (0.889), specificity (0.933) and diagnostic accuracy (92.1%) of AI to predict an unsatisfactory outcome were significantly better compared with CEA (0.731; 0.904; 78.2%) and RI (0.8; 0.655; 70.8%) (P < 0.05).


Satisfactory and unsatisfactory hips show different patterns of acetabular development after reduction. AI, CEA and RI are all predictors of final radiographic outcomes in DDH treated by CR, although AI showed the best results. AI continues to improve until seven years after CR in hips with satisfactory outcomes, while it ceases to improve three to four years after CR in hips with unsatisfactory outcomes. According to our results, surgery is indicated if AI >28° 1 year following CR or AI >25° two to four years after CR. CEA and RI should be used as a secondary index to aid in the selection of patients requiring surgery.


Developmental dysplasia of the hip Closed reduction Acetabular index Avascular necrosis of femoral head Predictor Residual acetabular dysplasia 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest and source of funding

YiQiang Li, YueMing Guo, and Ming Li contributed equally to this work. The authors declare that they have no conflict interests. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Ethical approval

All procedures were performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

No patients were involved. This was a retrospective study of patient data, and IRB approval was obtained (GZWCMC 2015020904).


  1. 1.
    Tomlinson J, O’Dowd D, Fernandes JA (2016) Managing developmental dysplasia of the hip. Indian J Pediatr 83(11):1275–1279. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kotlarsky P, Haber R, Bialik V, Eidelman M (2015) Developmental dysplasia of the hip: what has changed in the last 20 years? World J Orthop 6(11):886–901. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loder RT, Skopelja EN (2011) The epidemiology and demographics of hip dysplasia. ISRN Orthop 2011:238607. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albinana J, Dolan LA, Spratt KF, Morcuende J, Meyer MD, Weinstein SL (2004) Acetabular dysplasia after treatment for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Implications for secondary procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(6):876–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooperman DR, Wallensten R, Stulberg SD (1983) Acetabular dysplasia in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 175:79–85Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terjesen T (2011) Residual hip dysplasia as a risk factor for osteoarthritis in 45 years follow-up of late-detected hip dislocation. J Child Orthop 5(6):425–431. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitoh H, Kitakoji T, Katoh M, Ishiguro N (2006) Prediction of acetabular development after closed reduction by overhead traction in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Orthop Sci 11(5):473–477. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gotoh E, Tsuji M, Matsuno T, Ando M (2000) Acetabular development after reduction in developmental dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 378:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shin CH, Yoo WJ, Park MS, Kim JH, Choi IH, Cho TJ (2016) Acetabular remodeling and role of osteotomy after closed reduction of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(11):952–957. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fu Z, Yang JP, Zeng P, Zhang ZL (2014) Surgical implications for residual subluxation after closed reduction for developmental dislocation of the hip: a long-term follow-up. Orthop Surg 6(3):210–216. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim HT, Kim JI, Yoo CI (2000) Acetabular development after closed reduction of developmental dislocation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop 20(6):701–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tönnis D (1987) Congenital dysplasia and dislocation of the hip in children and adults. Springer Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salter RB, Kostuik J, Dallas S (1969) Avascular necrosis of the femoral head as a complication of treatment for congenital dislocation of the hip in young children: a clinical and experimental investigation. Can J Surg 12(1):44–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bucholz RW, Ogden JA (1978) Patterns of ischemic necrosis of the proximal femur in nonoperatively treated congenital hip disease, In the hip: Mosby proceedings of the sixth open scientific meeting of the hip society. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 43–63Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Severin E (1941) Contribution to the knowledge of congenital dislocation of the hip joint. Acta Chir Scand 84(Suppl 63):1–142Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Upasani VV, Bomar JD, Parikh G, Hosalkar H (2012) Reliability of plain radiographic parameters for developmental dysplasia of the hip in children. J Child Orthop 6(3):173–176. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Omeroglu H, Bicimoglu A, Agus H, Tumer Y (2002) Measurement of center-edge angle in developmental dysplasia of the hip: a comparison of two methods in patients under 20 years of age. Skelet Radiol 31(1):25–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li Y, Xu H, Li J, Yu L, Liu Y, Southern E, Liu H (2015) Early predictors of acetabular growth after closed reduction in late detected developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B 24(1):35–39. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen IH, Kuo KN, Lubicky JP (1994) Prognosticating factors in acetabular development following reduction of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop 14(1):3–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Satsuma S, Kobayashi D, Kinugasa M, Takeoka Y, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2016) A new predictive indicator by arthrography for future acetabular growth following conservative treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B 25(3):207–211. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Unal I (2017) Defining an optimal cut-point value in ROC analysis: an alternative approach. Comput Math Methods Med 2017:3762651. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reimers J (1980) The stability of the hip in children. A radiological study of the results of muscle surgery in cerebral palsy. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 184:1–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwartz DR (1965) Acetabular development after reduction of congenital dislocation of the hip: a follow-up study of fifty hips. J Bone Joint Surg Am 47:705–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tasnavites A, Murray DW, Benson MK (1993) Improvement in acetabular index after reduction of hips with developmental dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):755–759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vrdoljak J, Gogolja D (1999) Development of acetabulum after closed reduction in developmental hip dysplasia. Coll Antropol 23(2):745–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shi Y, Liu T, Zhao Q (2010) The measurements of normal acetabular index and sharp acetabular angle in Chinese hips. Chin J Orthop 30(8):748–753Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tonnis D (1976) Normal values of the hip joint for the evaluation of X-rays in children and adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res 119:39–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • YiQiang Li
    • 1
  • YueMing Guo
    • 2
  • Ming Li
    • 3
  • QingHe Zhou
    • 1
  • Yuanzhong Liu
    • 1
  • WeiDong Chen
    • 1
  • JingChun Li
    • 1
  • Federico Canavese
    • 1
    • 4
  • HongWen Xu
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Multi-center Pediatric Orthopedic Study Group of China
  1. 1.GuangZhou Women and Children’s Medical CenterGuangZhou Medical UniversityGuangZhouChina
  2. 2.Foshan Hospital of TCMFoshanChina
  3. 3.Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical UniversityChongqingChina
  4. 4.Pediatric Surgery Department University Hospital EstaingClermont FerrandFrance
  5. 5.Department of pediatric orthopaedicsGuangZhou Women and Children’s Medical CenterGuangZhouChina

Personalised recommendations