Search by Topic / Keyword...
pedsortho.com
(702) 333-7000
1 Breakthrough Way, Las Vegas NV 89135
4425 S. Pecos Rd. Ste. 6, Las Vegas NV 89121
Topic:
Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
Issue:
Hip
Category:
Developmental
Title:
Does Screening Ultrasound Timing in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Need to be Adjusted for Moderate Preterm and Near-term Infants: A Prospective Study
Author:
Hockett, Claire BA; Mayfield, Laura M. MPH; Gill, Corey S. MD; Kim, Harry K.W. MD, MS; Sucato, Daniel J. MD, MS; Podeszwa, David A. MD; Jo, Chan-Hee PhD; Morris, William Z. MD
Journal:
Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics
Date:
January 2024
Reference:
44(1): p e25-e29, DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000002540
Level Of Evidence:
II
# of Patients:
122
Study Type:
Prospective cohort study
Location:
Single-center study (exact location not mentioned)
Summary:
The study evaluates whether screening ultrasounds for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in high-risk infants need to be adjusted for gestational age in moderate preterm and near-term infants.
Methods:
Inclusion Criteria: Infants referred for screening ultrasound for DDH due to breech presentation, family history of DDH, or hip click, excluding those with known dysplasia or instability. Exclusion Criteria: Known dysplasia or hip instability. Intervention: Screening hip ultrasound between 5 and 8 weeks of age. Sonographic markers of dysplasia (alpha angle and femoral head coverage) were measured, and rates of abnormal ultrasound and Pavlik harness treatment were recorded. Groups: Premature (<37 weeks gestation) vs. Full-term (≥37 weeks gestation)
Exclusions:
Infants with known dysplasia or hip instability.
Results:
Gestational Age: Premature cohort had significantly decreased gestational age (35.4 ± 1.1 vs. 38.5 ± 1.1 weeks, P < 0.001). Demographics: No significant difference between cohorts in sex distribution (69% vs. 75% female, P = 0.39), unadjusted age at ultrasound (6.6 ± 0.7 vs. 6.8 ± 0.7 weeks, P = 0.07), or referral reason (P = 0.14). Hip Ultrasound Results: No significant differences between cohorts in alpha angle (62.6 ± 3.3 vs. 62.2 ± 5.3 degrees, P = 0.41), femoral head coverage (54.9 ± 6.3 vs. 55.1 ± 10.6, P = 0.19), abnormal ultrasound rate (18.3% vs. 20.7%, P = 0.68), or rate of Pavlik harness treatment (0% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.12).
Conclusions:
The study concludes that screening ultrasounds for DDH do not need to be adjusted for prematurity, as there were no significant differences between premature and full-term infants in key ultrasound markers or treatment outcomes.
Relevance:
Limitations:
Perspective: