Orthopaedics| October 01 2009 What Is the Optimal Strategy To Screen for Hip Dysplasia? AAP Grand Rounds (2009) 22 (4): 37. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.22-4-37 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation What Is the Optimal Strategy To Screen for Hip Dysplasia?. AAP Grand Rounds October 2009; 22 (4): 37. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.22-4-37 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP NewsAll AAP Sites Search Advanced Search Topics: developmental hip dysplasia, hip region, decision analysis Source: Mahan ST, Katz JN, Kim Y-J. To screen or not to screen? A decision analysis of the utility of screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7):1705–1719; doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00122 Investigators from Children’s Hospital, Boston, used decision analysis to evaluate three different screening decision strategies to detect newborn developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH): no screening (NS); universal physical examination and ultrasound screening (universal PE/US); and universal physical examination and selective ultrasound screening (universal PE/selective US). With decision analysis, outcomes in a hypothetical group of patients who undergo various diagnostic assessments and treatments are compared based on probabilities derived from literature review and clinical practice guidelines. Where uncertainty exists, analyses using a range of probabilities are conducted. For this study, DDH in the immature hip was defined as a continuum from mild acetabular dysplasia, dislocatable hip, subluxated hip, to a frankly dislocated hip. Each of the three screening strategies has known risk and benefits, including missed diagnosis in the unscreened to overtreatment and risk of avascular necrosis (AVN) or other surgical complications in those screened. The outcome used to assess the effects of different screening strategies (and different treatments based on the results of screening) was development of osteoarthritis of the hip by age 60 years, either from incomplete treatment or from a complication of treatment. In a normal population without DDH, 96% of adults will not have arthritis by age 60 years, so the maximum possible expected value in the analysis was set at 96%. The best screening strategy was determined to be universal PE/selective US screening. The expected value for avoiding severe arthritis before age 60 years for universal PE/US screening was 95.86%, 95.90% for universal PE/selective US screening, and 95.78% for NS. Varying assumed rates of disease prevalence, US sensitivity, rate of late diagnosis, and rate of AVN did not change the hierarchy of the best screening strategy, with either of the screening options still preferred over no screening. The authors estimated that in 2005 universal PE/selective US screening would have meant 1,566 fewer infants born in the US would have arthritis by age 60 years compared to universal PE/US screening. Universal PE/ selective US screening compared to NS gave an even larger difference of 4,969 cases. The authors recommend screening of all neonates by physical examination with selective US screening for high-risk neonates such as those with an abnormal physical examination, breech delivery, or positive family history. Dr Schwend has disclosed no financial relationship relevant to this commentary. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device. The investigators determined that the expected probability of having a non-arthritic hip by age 60 years would be improved with the strategy of universal PE/selective US for high-risk patients. Under no condition were either NS, which is essentially the natural history of DDH, or universal PE/US the best option. Early US screening has resulted in exaggerated DDH prevalence rates as high... You do not currently have access to this content.