Which Clinical Exam findings are most predictive of an abnormal hip ultrasound in the newborn? A chart review from a Canadian pediatric hospital
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND Developmental dysplasia of the hips is a condition that if not detected early and managed properly can lead to lifelong morbidity. The incidence of DDH in most developed countries is reported to be 1.5 to 20 cases per 1000 births. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care reports fair evidence to include a serial clinical examination of the hips by a trained clinician in the periodic health examination of all infants until they are walking independently. The indications for ultrasound examination are less clear. Guidelines for the clinical exam cite indications of imaging to be unstable hip, hip laxity, hip click and asymmetric skin folds. Given that some of these findings are extremely common it is likely that a large number of normal hips are being imaged unnecessarily. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this project is to determine which clinical findings are most predictive of an abnormal hip on ultrasound. It is hoped that this will assist the paediatrician or family doctor to balance unnecessary testing with the fear of missing an abnormal hip. DESIGN/METHODS All hip ultrasounds performed at a Canadian children’s hospital during 2016/17 on infants less than one year were reviewed for indication and outcome. The birth rate for the same year was 2,861. A total of 528 hip ultrasounds were performed. 156 ultrasounds were ordered by Paediatric Orthopaedic specialists and thus were not reviewed, leaving 372 ultrasounds for review. Ultrasounds were classified by age category at the time of imaging: <14 days, 14–28 days, 29–60 days, 61 days-6 months, 6 months-1 year. Tests were ordered by paediatricians, neonatologists, family doctors and nurse practitioners. The indications for ultrasound were categorized into 9 categories; hip click, hip laxity, unstable hip (positive Barlow, dislocatable hip), asymmetric skin folds, breech presentation, family history of DDH, hip click + breech, hip laxity + breech, or no indication given. When multiple terms were noted on requisition a hierarchy was followed with hip laxity>hip click>asymmetric skin folds. Ultrasound reports reported as normal or abnormal. RESULTS The primary indication for hip ultrasound was asymmetric skin folds, (N-132); followed by Hip laxity (N-101), Hip click (N-72), Unstable hip (positive Barlow, dislocatable hip) (N-31), no indication noted (N-23), Breech presentation (N-8), Family History of DDH (N-3) and other (N-2). The ultrasound findings with asymmetric skin folds revealed 100% of tests were normal (132/132) on first ultrasound regardless of baby’s age at imaging. For Hip laxity, 93% (94/101) ultrasounds were normal following second ultrasound and for hip click, 99% (71/72) were normal following second ultrasound. For those ultrasounds that were performed for hip click and hip laxity (N-173), only one ultrasound would have been required if performed at greater than 8 weeks of age. In the unstable hip, 82% (28/34) were normal following second ultrasound. None of the ultrasounds performed for risk factors such as family history or breech presentation were abnormal but when combined with a lax hip exam 3 were reported as abnormal. In our study, a diagnosis of DDH was given to 15/2,861 newborns. Of these 15; the clinical finding was 7/16 hip laxity alone, 6/16 unstable hip, 3/16 hip laxity + breech. CONCLUSION Though practitioners must continue to be vigilent in clinical hip surveillance, symmetric skin folds and isolated hip click are low yield indications for hip ultrasound in the newborn. For hip laxity or unstable hip, waiting until 8 weeks improves the reliability of the ultrasound result and thus reducing unnecessary retesting. The breech presentation alone did not increase diagnosis but when combined with exam was predictive.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».