Background Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) describes the abnormal development of a hip in childhood, ranging from complete dislocation of the hip joint to subtle immaturity of a hip that is enlocated and stable within the socket. DDH occurs in around 10 per 1000 live births, though only one per 1000 are completely dislocated. There is variation in treatment pathways for DDH, which differs between hospitals and even between clinicians within the same hospital. The variation is related to the severity of dysplasia that is believed to require treatment, and the techniques used to treat dysplasia. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of splinting and the optimal treatment strategy for the non‐operative management of DDH in babies under six months of age. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other electronic databases, and two trials registers up to November 2021. We also checked reference lists, contacted study authors, and handsearched relevant meetings abstracts. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi‐RCTs, as well as non‐RCTs and cohort studies conducted after 1980 were included. Participants were babies with all severities of DDH who were under six months of age. Interventions included dynamic splints (e.g. Pavlik harness), static splints (e.g Fixed abduction brace) or double nappies (diapers), compared to no splinting or delayed splinting. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments. The primary outcomes were: measurement of acetabular index at years one, two and five, as determined by radiographs (angle): the need for operative intervention to achieve reduction and to address dysplasia; and complications. We also investigated other outcomes highlighted by parents as important, including the bond between parent and child and the ability of mothers to breastfeed. Main results We included six RCTs or quasi‐RCTs (576 babies). These were supported by 16 non‐RCTs (8237 babies). Five studies had non‐commercial funding, three studies stated 'no funding' and 14 studies did not state funding source. The RCTs were generally at unclear risk of bias, although we judged three RCTs to be at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. The non‐RCTs were of moderate and critical risk of bias. We did not undertake meta‐analysis due to methodological and clinical differences between studies; instead, we have summarised the results narratively. Dynamic splinting versus delayed or no splinting Four RCTs and nine non‐RCTs compared immediate dynamic splinting and delayed dynamic splinting or no splinting. Of the RCTs, two considered stable hips and one considered unstable (dislocatable) hips and one jointly considered unstable and stable hips. No studies considered only dislocated hips. Two RCTs (265 babies, very low‐certainty evidence) reported acetabular index at one year amongst stable or dislocatable hips. Both studies found there may be no evidence of a difference in splinting stable hips at first diagnosis compared to a strategy of active surveillance: one reported a mean difference (MD) of 0.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.74 to 0.94), and the other an MD of 0.20 (95% CI −1.65 to 2.05). Two RCTs of stable hips (181 babies, very low‐certainty evidence) reported there may be no evidence of a difference between groups for acetabular index at two years: one study reported an MD of −1.90 (95% CI −4.76 to 0.96), and another study reported an MD of −0.10 (95% CI −1.93 to 1.73), but did not take into account hips from the same child. No study reported data at five years. Four RCTs (434 babies, very low‐certainty evidence) reported the need for surgical intervention. Three studies reported that no surgical interventions occurred. In the remaining study, two babies in the dynamic splinting group developed instability and were subsequently treated surgically. This study did not explicitly state if this treatment was to achieve concentric reduction or address residual dysplasia. Three RCTs (390 babies, very low‐certainty evidence) reported no complications (avascular necrosis and femoral nerve palsy). Dynamic splinting versus static splinting One RCT and five non‐RCTs compared dynamic versus static splinting. The RCT (118 hips) reported no occurrences of avascular necrosis (very low‐certainty evidence) and did not report radiological outcomes or need for operative intervention. One quasi‐RCT compared double nappies versus delayed or no splinting but reported no outcomes of interest. Other comparisons No RCTs compared static splinting versus delayed or no splinting or staged weaning versus immediate removal. Authors' conclusions There is a paucity of RCT evidence for splinting for the non‐operative management of DDH: we included only six RCTs with 576 babies. Moreover, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, precluding meta‐analysis. We judged the RCT evidence for all primary outcomes as being of very low certainty, meaning we are very uncertain about the true effects. Results from individual studies provide limited evidence of intervention effects on different severities of DDH. Amongst stable dysplastic hips, there was no evidence to suggest that treatment at any stage expedited the development of the acetabulum. For dislocatable hips, a delay in treatment onset to six weeks does not appear to result in any evidence of a difference in the development of the acetabulum at one year or increased risk of surgery. However, delayed splinting may reduce the number of babies requiring treatment with a harness. No RCTs compared static splinting with delayed or no splinting, staged weaning versus immediate removal or double nappies versus delayed or no splinting. There were few operative interventions or complications amongst the RCTs and the non‐randomised studies. There's no apparent signal to indicate a higher frequency of either outcome in either intervention group. Given the frequency of this disease, and the fact that many countries undertake mandatory DDH screening, there is a clear need to develop an evidence‐based pathway for treatment. Particular uncertainties requiring future research are the effectiveness of splinting amongst stable dysplastic hips, the optimal timing for the onset of splinting, the optimal type of splint to use and the need for 'weaning of splints'. Only once a robust pathway for treatment is established, can we properly assess the cost‐effectiveness of screening interventions for DDH. 

/pdf/splinting-for-the-non-operative-management-of-developmental-3rd1ag3r.pdf

Splinting for the non-operative management of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in children under six months of age

Aims A national screening programme has existed in the UK for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) since 1969. However, every aspect of screening and treatment remains controversial. Screening programmes throughout the world vary enormously, and in the UK there is significant variation in screening practice and treatment pathways. We report the results of an attempt by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) to identify a nationwide consensus for the management of DDH in order to unify treatment and suggest an approach for screening. Methods A Delphi consensus study was performed among the membership of BSCOS. Statements were generated by a steering group regarding aspects of the management of DDH in children aged under three months, namely screening and surveillance (15 questions), the technique of ultrasound scanning (eight questions), the initiation of treatment (19 questions), care during treatment with a splint (ten questions), and on quality, governance, and research (eight questions). A two-round Delphi process was used and a consensus document was produced at the final meeting of the steering group. Results A total of 60 statements were graded by 128 clinicians in the first round and 132 in the second round. Consensus was reached on 30 out of 60 statements in the first round and an additional 12 in the seond. This was summarized in a consensus statement and distilled into a flowchart to guide clinical practice. Conclusion We identified agreement in an area of medicine that has a long history of controversy and varied practice. None of the areas of consensus are based on high-quality evidence. This document is thus a framework to guide clinical practice and on which high-quality clinical trials can be developed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):209–214. 

/pdf/the-management-of-developmental-dysplasia-of-the-hip-in-1uykvdie.pdf

The management of developmental dysplasia of the hip in children aged under three months

We investigated the prevalence of late developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), abduction bracing treatment, and surgical procedures performed following the implementation of universal ultrasound screening versus selective ultrasound screening programmes.A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, OrthoSearch, and Web of Science from the date of inception of each database until 27 March 2022 was performed. The primary outcome of interest was the prevalence of late detection of DDH, diagnosed after three months. Secondary outcomes of interest were the prevalence of abduction bracing treatment and surgical procedures performed in childhood for dysplasia. Only studies describing the primary outcome of interest were included.A total of 31 studies were identified, of which 13 described universal screening and 20 described selective screening. Two studies described both. The prevalence of late DDH was 0.10 per 1,000 live births (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.39) in the universal screening group and 0.45 per 1,000 live births (95% CI 0.31 to 0.61) in the selective screening group. Abduction bracing treatment was performed on 55.54 per 1,000 live births (95% CI 24.46 to 98.15) in the universal screening group versus 0.48 per 1,000 live births (95% CI 0.07 to 1.13) in the selective screening group. Both the universal and selective screening groups had a similar prevalence of surgical procedures in childhood for dysplasia being performed (0.48 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.63) vs 0.49 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.71) per 1,000 live births, respectively).Universal screening showed a trend towards lower prevalence of late DDH compared to selective screening. However, it was also associated with a significant increase in the prevalence of abduction bracing without a significant reduction in the prevalence of surgical procedures in childhood for dysplasia being performed. High-quality studies comparing both treatment methods are required, in addition to studies into the natural history of missed DDH.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):198-208. 

Universal screening may reduce the incidence of late diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study was an update on the AAOS clinical practice guideline’s analysis of the natural history of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The objective was to delineate the natural history of clinical instability or radiologic abnormalities of the hip in infants by identifying the proportion of cases that resolved without treatment compared to cases that progressed and/or required treatment. We performed a literature search of PUBMED to identify studies which evaluated the natural history of DDH. We used the same search strategy as that utilized in the previous AAOS guidelines, updated to include articles published between September 2013 and May 2021. We assessed the quality of included articles using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of evidence and reported study demographics and outcomes using summary statistics. Twenty-four articles met our eligibility criteria. Most included studies were retrospective (14/24), investigated either the incidence of DDH (8/24) or assessed screening programs (7/24). The most prevalent study population followed were Graf 2A hips (7/24). Most studies were low quality with level of evidence 3 (13/24) or 4 (7/24). Sample sizes ranged from 9 to 3251. Twenty studies reported the number of cases resolved over the follow-up period with a mean rate of 84.3% (95% confidence interval 76.1, 92.6). We found most mild-to-moderate DDH can resolve without treatment in early infancy, especially in physiologically immature (Graf 2A) hips. More high-quality evidence is needed to properly assess the natural history of DDH as only one included study was a randomized trial.

/pdf/examining-the-short-term-natural-history-of-developmental-140i9t7osy.pdf

Examining the Short-Term Natural History of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infancy: A Systematic Review

Aims A national screening programme has existed in the UK for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) since 1969. However, every aspect of screening and treatment remains controversial. Screening programmes throughout the world vary enormously, and in the UK there is significant variation in screening practice and treatment pathways. We report the results of an attempt by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) to identify a nationwide consensus for the management of DDH in order to unify treatment and suggest an approach for screening. Methods A Delphi consensus study was performed among the membership of BSCOS. Statements were generated by a steering group regarding aspects of the management of DDH in children aged under three months, namely screening and surveillance (15 questions), the technique of ultrasound scanning (eight questions), the initiation of treatment (19 questions), care during treatment with a splint (ten questions), and on quality, governance, and research (eight questions). A two-round Delphi process was used and a consensus document was produced at the final meeting of the steering group. Results A total of 60 statements were graded by 128 clinicians in the first round and 132 in the second round. Consensus was reached on 30 out of 60 statements in the first round and an additional 12 in the seond. This was summarized in a consensus statement and distilled into a flowchart to guide clinical practice. Conclusion We identified agreement in an area of medicine that has a long history of controversy and varied practice. None of the areas of consensus are based on high-quality evidence. This document is thus a framework to guide clinical practice and on which high-quality clinical trials can be developed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):209–214.

Background The effect of bracing over natural history of stable dysplastic hips is not well known. This multicenter randomized trial aimed at objectifying the effect of abduction treatment versus active surveillance in infants of 3 to 4 months of age. Methods Patients were randomized to either Pavlik harness or active surveillance group. Ultrasound was repeated at 6 and 12 weeks post randomization. The primary outcome was the degree of dysplasia using the Graf α-angle at 6 months of age. The measurement of the acetabular index (AI) on plain pelvis X-rays was used to identify persistent dysplasia after 9 months and walking age (after 18 months). Findings The Pavlik harness group (n = 55) and active surveillance group (n = 49) were comparable for predictors of outcome. At 12 weeks follow-up the mean α-angle was 60.5° ± 3.8° in the Pavlik harness group and 60.0° ± 5.6° in the active surveillance group. (p = 0.30). Analysis of secondary outcomes (standard of care) showed no treatment differences for acetabular index at age 10 months (p = 0.82) and walking age (p = 0.35). Interpretation Pavlik harness treatment of stable but sonographic dysplastic hips has no effect on acetabular development. Eighty percent of the patients will have a normal development of the hip after twelve weeks. Therefore, we recommend observation rather than treatment for stable dysplastic hips.

/pdf/abduction-treatment-in-stable-hip-dysplasia-does-not-alter-5e4sbajcjj.pdf

Abduction treatment in stable hip dysplasia does not alter the acetabular growth: results of a randomized clinical trial

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

M. Witbreuk

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Abduction treatment in stable hip dysplasia does not alter the acetabular growth: results of a randomized clinical trial