Evaluation of Brace Treatment for Infant Hip Dislocation in a Prospective Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of a brace has been shown to be an effective treatment for hip dislocation in infants; however, previous studies of such treatment have been single-center or retrospective. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the success rate for brace use in the treatment of infant hip dislocation in an international, multicenter, prospective cohort, and to identify the variables associated with brace failure. METHODS: All dislocations were verified with use of ultrasound or radiography prior to the initiation of treatment, and patients were followed prospectively for a minimum of 18 months. Successful treatment was defined as the use of a brace that resulted in a clinically and radiographically reduced hip, without surgical intervention. The Mann-Whitney test, chi-square analysis, and Fisher exact test were used to identify risk factors for brace failure. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the probability of brace failure according to the risk factors identified. RESULTS: Brace treatment was successful in 162 (79%) of the 204 dislocated hips in this series. Six variables were found to be significant risk factors for failure: developing femoral nerve palsy during brace treatment (p = 0.001), treatment with a static brace (p < 0.001), an initially irreducible hip (p < 0.001), treatment initiated after the age of 7 weeks (p = 0.005), a right hip dislocation (p = 0.006), and a Graf-IV hip (p = 0.02). Hips with no risk factors had a 3% probability of failure, whereas hips with 4 or 5 risk factors had a 100% probability of failure. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide valuable information for patient families and their providers regarding the important variables that influence successful brace treatment for dislocated hips in infants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".