Of the 10 studies of low strength the various risk factors included were: breech, family history, sex, combination of sex and breech, combination of sex and family history, hip click, first born, swaddling, and talipes.
Breech literature included six studies all of low study strength. The results of these studies were meta-analyzed and the meta-analysis overwhelmingly supported breech presentation as a risk factor for neonatal instability. The literature terminology on breech is: breech at birth, breech delivery, and breech position at the third trimester; there is no literature to substantiate a particular duration of breech positioning as a risk factor.
Family history: four articles of low strength all showing statistical significance for family history as a risk factor for DDH. 4, 5, 13, 18 There was one study which showed no statistical significance. 3
One study compared treatment for dislocatable hips (at age less than one week) with no treatment for stable hips with positive family history. 8 The outcome was residual dysplasia at five months and was noted to be significant for the no treatment category. The authors further treated these patients from the no treatment category at age five months and compared them with the original cohort of Barlow positive patients treated at age less than one week. This time around, the outcome parameter was residual dysplasia at two years and was again noted to be significant. Other outcome measures included AVN at two years, which was not significant, and treatment failure, which was noted to be significant. This study did not have a true comparative group for analysis. There was a combination of dislocated and dislocatable hips in the Barlow positive category, which confounds the analysis.
The literature definitions of family history of DDH range from unspecified hip disorders to hip dislocation and from first degree relative (parents and siblings), to any relative (even if distant or vague) with hip problems or DDH (all other articles). Three articles listed family history, but did not specify the relationships or specific hip problems.3, 5, 7
One study compared ultrasound screening in infants who had risk factors alone with those who had “doubtful” clinical instability.17 Rate of detection of dislocation as confirmed by ultrasound was 13/1000 (7 to 24) vs 87/ 1000 (57 to 126/1000) respectively.
There is no substantiation in the literature of the optimal age for imaging studies in these infants with risk factors.8 One study performed hip radiographs at 4 months of age. Two studies14, 15 performed ultrasound between 2-6 weeks of age.
Examination of other quoted risk factors was done. Evidence was not found to include foot abnormalities, gender, oligohydramnios, and torticollis as risk factors for DDH.
Risks and Harms
There is a potential risk of over diagnosis and treatment.
- (10) Garvey M;Donoghue VB;Gorman WA;O'Brien N;Murphy JF. Radiographic screening at four months of infants at risk for congenital hip dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 Sep;74(5):704-7.
- (11) Goss PW. Successful screening for neonatal hip instability in Australia. J Paediatr Child Health 2002;38(5):469-474..
- (12) Hinderaker T, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM, Uden A, Reikeras O. The impact of intra-uterine factors on neonatal hip instability. An analysis of 1,059,479 children in Norway. Acta Orthop Scand 1994;65(3):239-242.
- (13) Jones DA. Importance of the clicking hip in screening for congenital dislocation of the hip. Lancet 1989;1(8638):599-601.
- (14) Khan MR, Benjamin B. Congenital hip instability in hospital born neonates in Abha. Ann Saudi Med 1992;12(2):184-187.
- (15) Kian CA;Eng HL;Lee PYC. Persistent hip clicks and their association with acetabular dysplasia. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 1996;4(1):51-53.
- (16) Paton RW, Hinduja K, Thomas CD. The significance of at-risk factors in ultrasound surveillance of developmental dysplasia of the hip. A ten-year prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005 Sep;87(9):1264-6.
- (17) Paton RW, Srinivasan MS, Shah B, Hollis S. Ultrasound screening for hips at risk in developmental dysplasia. Is it worth it? J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81(2):255-258.
- (18) Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT. Developmental dysplasia of the hip: prevalence based on ultrasound diagnosis. Pediatr Radiol 1996;26(9):635-639.
- (3) Akman A;Korkmaz A;Aksoy MC;Yazici M;Yurdakok M;Tekinalp G. Evaluation of risk factors in developmental dysplasia of the hip: results of infantile hip ultrasonography. Turk J Pediatr 2007;49(3):290-294.
- (4) Bache CE, Clegg J, Herron M. Risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip: ultrasonographic findings in the neonatal period. J Pediatr Orthop B 2002;11(3):212-218
- (5) Baronciani D;Atti G;Andiloro F;Bartesaghi A;Gagliardi L;Passamonti C;Petrone M. Screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip: from theory to practice. Collaborative Group DDH Project. Pediatrics 1997;99(2):E5.
- (6) Bond CD;Hennrikus WL;DellaMaggiore ED. Prospective evaluation of newborn soft-tissue hip 'clicks' with ultrasound. J Pediatr Orthop. 1997 Mar-Apr;17(2):199-201.
- (8) Burger BJ;Burger JD;Bos CF;Obermann WR;Rozing PM;Vandenbroucke JP. Neonatal screening and staggered early treatment for congenital dislocation or dysplasia of the hip. Lancet. 1990 Dec 22-29;336(8730):1549-53.
- (9) Cunningham KT, Moulton A, Beningfield SA, Maddock CR. A clicking hip in a newborn baby should never be ignored. Lancet 1984;1(8378):668-670.