Why all newborn hip screening programs have same results—a mini review

All newborns are screened for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), but countries have varying screening practices. The aim of this narrative mini review is to discuss the controversies of the screening and why it seems that all screening programs are likely to have same outcome. Different scree...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of pediatrics 2024-07, Vol.183 (7), p.2889-2892
Hauptverfasser: BM, Matias Vaajala, Pakarinen, Oskari, Helenius, Ilkka, Uimonen, Mikko M, Ponkilainen, Ville T, Kuitunen, Ilari
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:All newborns are screened for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), but countries have varying screening practices. The aim of this narrative mini review is to discuss the controversies of the screening and why it seems that all screening programs are likely to have same outcome. Different screening strategies are discussed alongside with other factors influencing DDH in this review. Universal ultrasound (US) has been praised as it finds more immature hips than clinical examination, but it has not been proven to reduce the rates of late-detected DDH or surgical management. Universal US screening increases initial treatment rates, while selective US and clinical screening have similar outcomes regarding late detection rates than universal US. This can be explained by the extrinsic factor affecting the development of the hip joint after birth and thus initial screening during the early weeks cannot find these cases.   Conclusion : It seems that DDH screening strategies have strengths and limitations without notable differences in the most severe outcomes (late-detected cases requiring operative treatment). Thus, it is important to acknowledge that the used screening policy is a combination of values and available resources rather than a decision based on clear evidence.
ISSN:1432-1076
0340-6199
1432-1076
DOI:10.1007/s00431-024-05539-x