A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UK
Background: The United Kingdom (UK) currently employs a selective screening system for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Despite this, late presentation rates remain high. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available literature to gain an understanding of screening practi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Open Exploration Publishing Inc.
2024-06-01
|
| Series: | Exploration of Musculoskeletal Diseases |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/A100747/100747.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1839610935338074112 |
|---|---|
| author | Nicholas Birkett Edward Karam David Ferguson Deepika Pinto Claudia Maizen |
| author_facet | Nicholas Birkett Edward Karam David Ferguson Deepika Pinto Claudia Maizen |
| author_sort | Nicholas Birkett |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: The United Kingdom (UK) currently employs a selective screening system for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Despite this, late presentation rates remain high. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available literature to gain an understanding of screening practices throughout the UK. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Studies reporting DDH screening methods from the UK were included. The primary outcome measure was the method of ultrasound and clinical screening. Secondary outcomes were the treatment rate and late presentation rate. A narrative analysis was undertaken, as meta-analysis was felt to be inappropriate due to the differences between included studies. Results: Nine studies were eligible and included. There was significant variability in practice, with a variety of ultrasound techniques being used and a variety of staff members performing clinical screening. Treatment rate ranged from 16.4/1,000 to 0.8/1,000. Late presentation rate ranged from 1.28/1,000 to 0.27/1,000. Discussion: In spite of a national consensus statement, there is no standardised approach to clinical or ultrasound screening in the UK. A variety of different methods are used, which may explain the persistently high late presentation rate. A national system of quality control and a standardised screening process is recommended, with specialised training in the Graf method of ultrasound. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1d8355f37ee243a08b51cb37aa51977f |
| institution | Matheson Library |
| issn | 2836-6468 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-06-01 |
| publisher | Open Exploration Publishing Inc. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Exploration of Musculoskeletal Diseases |
| spelling | doaj-art-1d8355f37ee243a08b51cb37aa51977f2025-07-29T02:30:47ZengOpen Exploration Publishing Inc.Exploration of Musculoskeletal Diseases2836-64682024-06-012318118810.37349/emd.2024.00047A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UKNicholas Birkett0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2191-0375Edward Karam1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5737-7998David Ferguson2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2876-8225Deepika Pinto3Claudia Maizen4Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, E1 1BB London, UKDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, E1 1BB London, UKDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, E1 1BB London, UKDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, E1 1BB London, UKDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, E1 1BB London, UKBackground: The United Kingdom (UK) currently employs a selective screening system for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Despite this, late presentation rates remain high. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available literature to gain an understanding of screening practices throughout the UK. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Studies reporting DDH screening methods from the UK were included. The primary outcome measure was the method of ultrasound and clinical screening. Secondary outcomes were the treatment rate and late presentation rate. A narrative analysis was undertaken, as meta-analysis was felt to be inappropriate due to the differences between included studies. Results: Nine studies were eligible and included. There was significant variability in practice, with a variety of ultrasound techniques being used and a variety of staff members performing clinical screening. Treatment rate ranged from 16.4/1,000 to 0.8/1,000. Late presentation rate ranged from 1.28/1,000 to 0.27/1,000. Discussion: In spite of a national consensus statement, there is no standardised approach to clinical or ultrasound screening in the UK. A variety of different methods are used, which may explain the persistently high late presentation rate. A national system of quality control and a standardised screening process is recommended, with specialised training in the Graf method of ultrasound.https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/A100747/100747.pdfddhscreeningultrasoundclinical screening |
| spellingShingle | Nicholas Birkett Edward Karam David Ferguson Deepika Pinto Claudia Maizen A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UK Exploration of Musculoskeletal Diseases ddh screening ultrasound clinical screening |
| title | A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UK |
| title_full | A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UK |
| title_fullStr | A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UK |
| title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UK |
| title_short | A systematic review of DDH screening practices in the UK |
| title_sort | systematic review of ddh screening practices in the uk |
| topic | ddh screening ultrasound clinical screening |
| url | https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/A100747/100747.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nicholasbirkett asystematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT edwardkaram asystematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT davidferguson asystematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT deepikapinto asystematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT claudiamaizen asystematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT nicholasbirkett systematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT edwardkaram systematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT davidferguson systematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT deepikapinto systematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk AT claudiamaizen systematicreviewofddhscreeningpracticesintheuk |