Evidence based treatment for developmental dysplasia of the hip in children under 6 months of age. Systematic review and exploratory analysis. Issue 2 (April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ashoor, Maryam; Abdulla, Nada; Elgabaly, Elham Ahmed; Aldlyami, Ehab; Alshryda, Sattar
• Is Part Of: Surgeon. Volume 19:Issue 2(2021)
• Page Start: 77
• Page End: 86
• Publication Date: 2021-04
• Subjects: DDH -- Orthopaedics -- Developmental dysplasia of the hip; Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Operative -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.02.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1479-666X

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a common paediatric orthopaedic condition that attracts a substantive amount of controversy. The treatments vary because of the wide spectrum of the condition and the age of children at presentation. Although conservative and surgical treatments exist; it is widely accepted that conservative treatment is the first line of treatment in the first 6 months of life. Several devices have been proposed as the treatment of choice; however, to the best of our knowledge these have not been critically appraised. Therefore, we conducted this review. Methods: A modified Cochrane method was followed with a preplanned detailed research protocol that was developed to guide all aspects of the review. Treatment failure of the devices was chosen as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included femoral nerve palsy (FNP), avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVN), residual dysplasia, skin problems, failure of subsequent surgical treatment, compliance and tolerance issues. Results are reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 30 studies were included in the review comparing 5 devices (The Pavlik harness, the Von Rosen splint, the Tubingen brace, the Frejka pillow, and the Aberdeen splint). The devices were compared in terms of success rate, AVN rate and residual dysplasia. The von Rosen splint has been shown to be superior to other devices in term of success rates and residual dysplasia (Χ 2 : P < 0.05). Conclusion: The review findings should be interpreted with caution as there are substantive flaws in the literature and a randomized control trail is warranted to confirm the best device to treat DDH. This is feasible given the magnitude of the problem, the clear diagnostic criteria and the treatment options.