Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Aug 1;5(8):e2227638.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27638.

Incidence of Neonatal Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip and Late Detection Rates Based on Screening Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Incidence of Neonatal Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip and Late Detection Rates Based on Screening Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Ilari Kuitunen et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Universal ultrasonographic screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) has gained increasing popularity despite the lack of benefit in terms of reducing the rates of late-detected cases (age ≥12 weeks) in randomized clinical trials.

Objective: To report the reported incidence of DDH in the English scientific literature and compare rates of late-detected cases in settings with different DDH screening strategies.

Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on November 25 and 27, 2021. No time filters were used in the search.

Study selection: All observational studies reporting the incidence of early-detected or late-detected (age ≥12 weeks) DDH were included. Non-English reports were excluded if the abstract did not include enough information to be included for analysis.

Data extraction and synthesis: The number of newborns screened and the detection rates were extracted. Meta-analysis calculated the pooled incidence of DDH per 1000 newborns with 95% CIs using a random- or fixed-effects model. This study is reported according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines.

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome measures were early detection, early treatment, late detection, and operative treatment incidences.

Results: A total of 1899 studies were identified, 203 full texts were assessed, and 76 studies with 16 901 079 infants were included in final analyses. The early detection rate was 8.4 (95% CI, 4.8-14.8) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 4.4 (95% CI, 2.4-8.0) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 23.0 (95% CI, 15.7-33.4) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. Rates for nonoperative treatment were 5.5 (95% CI, 2.1-14) treatments per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 3.1 (95% CI, 2.0-4.8) treatments per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 9.8 (95% CI, 6.7-14.4) treatments per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. The incidence of late-detected DDH was 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2-1.5) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.3-1.3) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 0.2 (95% CI, 0.0-0.8) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. The corresponding incidences of operative treatment were 0.2 (95% CI, 0.0-0.9) operations per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 0.5 (95% CI, 0.4-0.7) operations per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-0.7) operations per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening.

Conclusions and relevance: This meta-analysis found that early detection rates and nonoperative treatments were higher with universal screening. The late detection and operative treatment rates with universal screening were similar to those among selectively and clinically screened newborns. Based on these results, universal screening may cause initial overtreatment without reducing the rates of late detection and operative treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Helenius reported receiving grants from Medtronic, Stryker, Nuvasive, and Cerapedics outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Forest Plot of the Incidence of Early-Detected Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Individual Studies Stratified by Screening Strategy
A generalized linear random-effects model was used to calculate pooled incidences per 1000 newborns in each screening group. NA indicates not applicable.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Geographic Variation in the Incidence of Early-Detected Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
Incidences reported per 1000 newborns. Incidence calculated based on either the clinical or ultrasonographic findings per patient, depending on the screening strategy in use.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Forest Plot of the Incidence of Initial Nonoperative Treatment for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Individual Studies Stratified by the Screening Strategy
Nonoperative treatment included harness or splinting. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled incidences per 1000 newborns in each screening group. NA indicates not applicable.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. Forest Plot of the Incidence of Late-Detected Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Individual Studies Stratified by Screening Strategy
Late detection was defined as age 12 weeks or older. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled incidences per 1000 newborns in each screening group. NA indicates not applicable.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.. Forest Plot of the Incidence of Operative Treatment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Individual Studies Stratified by Screening Strategy
Operative treatment included closed and open reductions. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled incidences per 1000 newborns in each screening group. NA indicates not applicable.

References

    1. Vafaee AR, Baghdadi T, Baghdadi A, Jamnani RK. DDH epidemiology revisited: do we need new strategies? Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017;5(6):440-442. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dezateux C, Rosendahl K. Developmental dysplasia of the hip. Lancet. 2007;369(9572):1541-1552. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60710-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Graf R. The diagnosis of congenital hip-joint dislocation by the ultrasonic Combound treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (1978). 1980;97(2):117-133. doi:10.1007/BF00450934 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Degnan AJ, Hemingway J, Otero HJ, Hughes DR. Developmental hip dysplasia and hip ultrasound frequency in a large American payer database. Clin Imaging. 2021;76:213-216. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.04.023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wilf-Miron R, Kuint J, Peled R, Cohen A, Porath A. Utilization of ultrasonography to detect developmental dysplasia of the hip: when reality turns selective screening into universal use. BMC Pediatr. 2017;17(1):136. doi:10.1186/s12887-017-0882-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms