What Risk Factors and Characteristics Are Associated With Late-presenting Dislocations of the Hip in Infants?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Most infants with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) are diagnosed within the first 3 months of life. However, late-presenting DDH (defined as a diagnosis after 3 months of age) does occur and often results in more complex treatment and increased long-term complications. Specific risk factors involved in late-presenting DDH are poorly understood, and clearly defining an associated set of factors will aid in screening, detection, and prevention of this condition. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using a multicenter database of patients with DDH, we sought to determine whether there were differences in (1) risk factors or (2) the nature of the dislocation (laterality and joint laxity) when comparing patients with early versus late presentation. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a multicenter database of patients with dislocated hips was conducted from 2010 to 2014. Baseline demographics for fetal presentation (cephalic/breech), birth presentation (vaginal/cesarean), birth weight, maternal age, maternal parity, gestational age, family history, and swaddling history of patients were compared among nine different sites for patients who were enrolled at age younger than 3 months and those enrolled between 3 and 18 months of age. A total of 392 patients were enrolled at baseline between 0 and 18 months of age with at least one dislocated hip. Of that group, 259 patients were younger than 3 months of age and 133 were 3 to 18 months of age. The proportion of patients with DDH who were enrolled and followed at the nine participating centers was 98%. RESULTS: A univariate/multivariate analysis was performed comparing key baseline demographics between early- and late-presenting patients. After controlling for relevant confounding variables, two variables were identified as risk factors for late-presenting DDH as compared with early-presenting: cephalic presentation at birth and swaddling history. Late-presenting patients were more likely to have had a cephalic presentation than early-presenting patients (88% [117 of 133] versus 65% [169 or 259]; odds ratio [OR], 5.366; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.44-11.78; p < 0.001). Additionally, late-presenting patients were more likely to have had a history of swaddling (40% [53 of 133] versus 25% [64 of 259]; OR, 2.053; 95% CI, 1.22-3.45; p = 0.0016). No difference was seen for sex (p = 0.63), birth presentation (p = 0.088), birth weight (p = 0.90), maternal age (p = 0.39), maternal parity (p = 0.54), gestational age (p = 0.42), or family history (p = 0.11) between the two groups. Late presenters were more likely to present with an irreducible dislocation than early presenters (56% [82 of 147 hips] versus 19% [63 of 333 hips]; OR, 5.407; 95% CI, 3.532-8.275; p < 0.001) and were less likely to have a bilateral dislocation (11% [14 of 133] versus 28% [73 of 259]; OR, 0.300; 95% CI, 0.162-0.555; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Those presenting with DDH after 3 months of age have fewer of the traditional risk factors for DDH (such as breech birth), which may explain the reason for a missed diagnosis at a younger age. In addition, swaddling history was more common in late-presenting infants. A high index of suspicion for DDH should be maintained for all infants, not just those with traditional risk factors for DDH. Further investigation is required to determine if swaddling is a risk factor for the development of hip dislocations in older infants. More rigorous examination into traditional screening methods should also be performed to determine whether current screening is sufficient and whether late-presenting dislocations are present early and missed or whether they develop over time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».