Comparison Static and Dynamic Ultrasound Techniques of DDH: The Role of the Patient's Position

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Department of radiology, faculty medicine, Mashhad University of medical science, Iran

2 Department of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Iran

3 Department of Radiology, faculty medicine, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Objectives: The ultrasound examination of the hip joint is performed in the static (Graf) technique in the 
lateral recumbent position and in the dynamic technique in the supine position. This study compares 
the two static and dynamic techniques and assesses the role of the patient's position in the examination 
of DDH.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020-2021 at Akbar Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical 
Sciences, Iran. 126 patients suspected of having DDH (199 hip) infants were enrolled in the study. All ultrasound 
examinations were performed with two static and dynamic techniques by a pediatric radiologist.
Results: In the static and dynamic ultrasound examinations, the average alpha angle was 51.57 ± 6.41 degrees, 
and 53.41 ± 6.94 degrees, respectively. These changes were not statistically significant (P = 0.312). The relationship 
and agreement between instability with dynamic technique and instability with static technique (IIC unstable, D, III, 
and IV) were investigated. Significant agreement (Kappa=0.77 (95% CI: 0.66-0.87) with excellent clinical 
significance was obtained between the two ultrasound examination method. Also, in terms of DDH types in the static 
method with instability types in the dynamic method, a substantial agreement was found between the two 
examination methods (Kappa =0.67; (95% CI: 0.59-0.75) with good clinical significance.
Conclusion: In the ultrasound examination of DDH with static and dynamic techniques, the change in the alpha 
angle was not statistically significant. Therefore, the hand of the radiologist is open in measuring alpha angles and 
there is no need to emphasize a specific position. The type of DDH in the static technique completely corresponded 
to the type of stability or instability in the dynamic technique.
 Level of evidence: IV

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Duarte ML, Motta GGB, Rodrigues NVM, Chiovatto ARS, Chiovatto ED, Iared W. Ultrasound techniques for the detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sao Paulo Med J. 2023; 141(2): 154–167. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2021.0852.13062022.
  2. Biedermann R, Riccabona J, Giesinger J, et al. Results of universal ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip: a prospective follow-up of 28 092 consecutive infants. Bone Joint J. 2018; 100(10):1399-1404. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B10.BJJ-2017-1539.R2.
  3. Suzuki S, Seto Y, Futami T, Kashiwagi N. Preliminary traction and the use of under-thigh pillows to prevent avascular necrosis of the femoral head in Pavlik harness treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Orthop Sci.2000; 5(6):540-5. doi: 10.1007/s007760070002.
  4. Arti H, Mehdinasab SA, Arti S. Comparing results of clinical versus ultrasonographic examination in developmental dysplasia of hip. J Res Med Sci.2013; 18(12):1051-5.
  5. Charlton S, Muir L, Skinner T, Walters L. Pilot evaluation of anterior dynamic ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in an Australian regional hospital. Rural Remote Health. 2012:12:2091.
  6. Kang YR, Koo J. Ultrasonography of the pediatric hip and spine. Ultrasonography. 2017; 36(3):239-251. doi: 10.14366/usg.16051.
  7. Gulati V, Eseonu K, Sayani J, et al. Developmental dysplasia of the hip in the newborn: A systematic review. World J Orthop. 2013; 4(2):32-41. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v4.i2.32.
  8. Koşar P, Ergun E, Unlübay D, Koşar U. Comparison of morphologic and dynamic US methods in examination of the newborn hip. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2009; 15(4):284-9. doi: 10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.2557-09.2.
  9. Chavoshi M, Soltani G, Shafiei Zargar S, Wyles CC, Kremers HM, Rouzrokh P. Diagnostic Performance of Clinical Examination Versus Ultrasonography in the Detection of Developmental Dysplasia of Hip: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2022; 10(5):403-412. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2021.60504.2984.
  10. Harcke HT. Imaging methods used for children with hip dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 :(434):71-7. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000162411.55355.c8.
  11. Farr S, Grill F, Müller D. Wann ist der optimale Zeitpunkt für ein sonographisches Hüftscreening. Orthopade. 2008; 37(6):532, 534-6, 538-40. doi: 10.1007/s00132-008-1236-2.
  12. Ihme N, Altenhofen L, Von Kries R, Niethard F. [Hip ultrasound screening in Germany. Results and comparison with other screening procedures]. Orthopade. 2008; 37(6):541-6, 548-9. doi: 10.1007/s00132-008-1237-1.
  13. Holen K, Tegnander A, Bredland T, et al. Universal or selective screening of the neonatal hip using ultrasound? A prospective, randomised trial of 15 529 newborn infants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84(6):886-90. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.84b6.12093.
  14. Paton RW, Hossain S, Eccles K. Eight-year prospective targeted ultrasound screening program for instability and at-risk hip joints in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002; 22(3):338-41.
  15. Kilsdonk I, Witbreuk M, Van Der Woude H-J. Ultrasound of the neonatal hip as a screening tool for DDH: how to screen and differences in screening programs between European countries. J Ultrason. 2021; 21(85):e147-e153. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2021.0024.
  16. Kamath S, Mehdi A, Wilson N, Duncan R. The lack of evidence of the effect of selective ultrasound screening on the incidence of late developmental dysplasia of the hip in the Greater Glasgow Region. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2007; 16(3):189-91. doi: 10.1097/01.bpb.0000236229.44819.43.
  17. Thallinger C, Pospischill R, Ganger R, Radler C, Krall C, Grill F. Long-term results of a nationwide general ultrasound screening system for developmental disorders of the hip: the Austrian hip screening program. J Child Orthop. 2014; 8(1):3-10. doi: 10.1007/s11832-014-0555-6.
  18. Wirth T, Stratmann L, Hinrichs F. Evolution of late presenting developmental dysplasia of the hip and associated surgical procedures after 14 years of neonatal ultrasound screening. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86(4):585-9.
  19. Thaler M, Biedermann R, Lair J, Krismer M, Landauer F. Cost-effectiveness of universal ultrasound screening compared

 

with clinical examination alone in the diagnosis and treatment of neonatal hip dysplasia in Austria. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2011; 93(8):1126-30. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B8.25935.

  1. Kotlarsky P, Haber R, Bialik V, Eidelman M. Developmental dysplasia of the hip: What has changed in the last 20 years? World J Orthop. 2015; 6(11):886-901. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i11.886.
  2. Pavone V, de Cristo C, Vescio A, et al. Dynamic and Static Splinting for Treatment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Systematic Review. Children (Basel). 2021; 8(2):104. doi: 10.3390/children8020104.
  3. Engesæter IØ, Lehmann T, Laborie LB, Lie SA, Rosendahl K, Engesæter LB. Total hip replacement in young adults with hip dysplasia: age at diagnosis, previous treatment, quality of life, and validation of diagnoses reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2007. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(2):149-54. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.566146.
  4. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of an ultrasound examination for detection and assessment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Ultrasound Med.2009; 28(1):114-9. doi: 10.7863/jum.2009.28.1.114.
  5. Graf R. Hip sonography: background; technique and common mistakes; results; debate and politics; challenges. Hip Int. 2017; 27(3):215-219. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000514.
  6. Shorter D, Hong T, Osborn DA. Screening programmes for developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 2011(9):CD004595. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004595.pub2.
  7. Omeroğlu H. Use of ultrasonography in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Child Orthop. 2014; 8(2):105-13. doi: 10.1007/s11832-014-0561-8.
  8. Chen T, Zhang Y, Wang B, et al. Development of a Fully Automated Graf Standard Plane and Angle Evaluation Method for Infant Hip Ultrasound Scans. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(6):1423. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12061423.
  9. Diaz A, Cuervo M, Epeldegui T. Simultaneous ultrasound studies of developmental dysplasia of the hip using the Graf, Harcke, and Suzuki approaches. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B. 1994; 3(2):185-9.
  10. Alamdaran SA, Kazemi S, Parsa A, Moghadam MH, Feyzi A, Mardani R. Assessment of diagnostic value of single view dynamic technique in diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of hip: a comparison with static and dynamic ultrasond techniques. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016; 4(4):371-375.
  11. Tosun A, Ozkaya E, Hancerliogullari KO, et al. Combination of some findings of two different screening methods in DDH: Presentation of our findings in a large population. Applied Science Reports. 2013; 1(1).
  12. Finnbogason T, Jorulf H, Söderman E, Rehnberg L. Anterior dynamic ultrasound and Graf's examination in neonatal hip instability. Acta Radiol. 2008; 49(2):204-11. doi: 10.1080/02841850701775022.
  13. Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT. Ultrasound in the early diagnosis of congenital dislocation of the hip: the significance of hip stability versus acetabular morphology. Pediatr Radiol. 1992; 22(6):430-3. doi: 10.1007/BF02013504.
  14. Falliner A, Schwinzer D, Hahne HJ, Hedderich J, Hassenpflug J. Comparing ultrasound measurements of neonatal hips using the methods of Graf and Terjesen. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(1):104-6. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16419.
  15. Czubak J, Kotwicki T, Ponitek T, Skrzypek H. Ultrasound measurements of the newborn hip. Comparison of two methods in 657 newborns. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998; 69(1):21-4. doi: 10.3109/17453679809002349.
  16. Omeroğlu H, Biçimoğlu A, Koparal S, Seber S. Assessment of variations in the measurement of hip ultrasonography by the Graf method in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2001; 10(2):89-95.

 

 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 12, Issue 3
March 2024
Pages 191-197

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 December 2022
  • Revise Date: 22 December 2023
  • Accept Date: 30 October 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics