Is ultrasound screening for DDH in babies born breech sufficient?
- First Online:
- 214 Downloads
To review our incidence of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in breech infants referred for ultrasound screening and to determine if subsequent follow-up radiographs are necessary in these patients with normal clinical and ultrasound examinations.
A review of the clinical data and imaging studies of all children with the risk factor of breech presentation that were referred for orthopedic evaluation over a 5-year period was conducted. All patients were examined by a fellowship-trained pediatric orthopedic surgeon and all ultrasounds were done at approximately 6 weeks of age by an experienced ultrasonographer. Ultrasounds were evaluated using the dynamic method as described by Harcke. As per our protocol, all patients with normal screening ultrasounds were brought back for a final clinical examination and radiographic check at 4–6 months. Acetabular dysplasia was indicated by radiographic parameters—if there was severe blunting of the sourcil, abnormal acetabular index for age, or if there was significant asymmetry of acetabular indices side-to-side—in the setting of clinical parameters—if there was greater than 10° difference in side-to-side abduction or symmetric abduction of less than 60°.
Three hundred patients with the risk factor of breech presentation were included. Thirty-four patients had clinically unstable hips; 266 had clinically stable hips and were screened by ultrasound. Sixty-four percent were female and 36% were male. Twenty-seven percent of these breech patients had abnormal screening ultrasounds and were subsequently treated. Of the remaining 73% with normal ultrasounds, who were returned per protocol at a mean of 5 months, 29% had evidence of dysplasia and underwent treatment. The diagnosis of dysplasia following a normal ultrasound was based on both radiographic and clinical parameters. Of the hips treated with a Pavlik harness, 62% had acetabular indices at least two standard deviations from the age-corrected average versus 26% of patients not treated. The average length of follow-up was 10 months.
Retrospectively, we found that, at approximately 6 weeks of age, ultrasound screening of breech patients with clinically stable hips produces an incidence of DDH of 27%. In those patients with a normal ultrasound, 29%, at 4–6 months radiographic follow-up, were found to have dysplasia requiring treatment. This data supports breech as the most important risk factor for hip dysplasia and we, therefore, recommend careful and longitudinal evaluation of these patients with: a careful newborn physical examination, an ultrasound at age 6 weeks, and an anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and frog lateral radiograph at 6 months, as the risk of subsequent dysplasia is too high to discharge patients after a normal ultrasound.
KeywordsDevelopmental dysplasia of the hip Ultrasound Breech presentation
- 5.Harcke HT, Clarke NM, Lee MS, Borns PF, MacEwen GD (1984) Examination of the infant hip with real-time ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 3:131–137Google Scholar
- 6.Clarke NM, Harcke HT, McHugh P, Lee MS, Borns PF, MacEwen GD (1985) Real-time ultrasound in the diagnosis of congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67:406–412Google Scholar
- 8.Tönnis 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
- 11.Bache CE, Clegg J, Herron M (2002) Risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip: ultrasonographic findings in the neonatal period. J Pediatr Orthop B 11:212–218Google Scholar
- 12.Dunn PM (1976) Perinatal observations on the etiology of congenital dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 119:11–22Google Scholar
- 13.Bower C, Stanley FJ, Kricker A (1987) Congenital dislocation of the hip in Western Australia. A comparison of neonatally and postneonatally diagnosed cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 224:37–44Google Scholar
- 18.Engesaeter LB, Wilson DJ, Nag D, Benson MK (1990) Ultrasound and congenital dislocation of the hip. The importance of dynamic assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:197–201Google Scholar
- 20.Broughton NS, Brougham DI, Cole WG, Menelaus MB (1989) Reliability of radiological measurements in the assessment of the child’s hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:6–8Google Scholar
- 21.Herring JA (2008) Developmental dysplasia of the hip. In: Herring JA (ed) Tachdjian’s pediatric orthopaedics, 4th edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, p 649Google Scholar
- 22.Weinstein SL, Mubarak SJ, Wenger DR (2004) Developmental hip dysplasia and dislocation: part II. Instr Course Lect 53:531–542Google Scholar
- 23.Harris WH (1986) Etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 213:20–33Google Scholar
- 24.Solomon L (1976) Patterns of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 58:176–183Google Scholar
- 25.Stulberg SD, Harris WH (1974) Acetabular dysplasia and development of osteoarthritis of the hip. In: Harris WH (ed) The hip: Proceedings of the Second Open Scientific Session of the Hip Society. CV Mosby, St. Louis, MO, pp 82–93Google Scholar
- 26.Cooperman DR, Wallensten R, Stulberg SD (1983) Acetabular dysplasia in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 175:79–85Google Scholar
- 28.Carter CO, Wilkinson JA (1964) Genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of congenital dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 33:119–128Google Scholar