Acetabular index is the best predictor of late residual acetabular dysplasia after closed reduction in developmental dysplasia of the hip
- 439 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDevelopmental 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.
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.
No patients were involved. This was a retrospective study of patient data, and IRB approval was obtained (GZWCMC 2015020904).
- 5.Cooperman DR, Wallensten R, Stulberg SD (1983) Acetabular dysplasia in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 175:79–85Google Scholar
- 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.Severin E (1941) Contribution to the knowledge of congenital dislocation of the hip joint. Acta Chir Scand 84(Suppl 63):1–142Google Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/bpb.0000000000000265 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.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