A Prospective, Multicenter Study of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: What Can Patients Expect After Open Reduction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there are several predominantly single-center case series in the literature, relatively little prospectively collected data exist regarding the outcomes of open hip reduction (OR) for infantile developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The purpose of this prospective, multi-center study was to determine the outcomes after OR in a diverse patient population. METHODS: The prospectively collected database of an international multicenter study group was queried for all patients treated with OR for DDH. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Proximal femoral growth disturbance (PFGD) was defined by consensus review using Salter's criteria. Persistent acetabular dysplasia was defined as an acetabular index >90th percentile for age. Statistical analyses were performed to compare preoperative and operative characteristics that predicted re-dislocation, PFGD, and residual acetabular dysplasia. RESULTS: A cohort of 232 hips (195 patients) was identified; median age at OR was 19 months (interquartile range 13 to 28) and median follow-up length was 21 months (interquartile range 16 to 32). Re-dislocation occurred in 7% of hips (n=16/228). The majority (81%; n=13/16) occurred in the first year after initial OR. Excluding patients with repeat dislocation, 94.5% of hips were IHDI 1 at most recent follow-up. On the basis of strict radiographic review, some degree of PFGD was present in 44% of hips (n=101/230) at most recent follow-up. Seventy-eight hips (55%) demonstrated residual dysplasia compared with established normative data. Hips that had a pelvic osteotomy at index surgery had about half the rate of residual dysplasia (39%; n=32/82) versus those without a pelvic osteotomy with at least 2 years follow-up (78%; n=46/59). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest prospective, multicenter study to date, OR for infantile DDH was associated with a 7% risk of re-dislocation, 44% risk of PFGD, and 55% risk of residual acetabular dysplasia at short term follow-up. The incidence of these adverse outcomes is higher than previous reports. Patients treated with concomitant pelvic osteotomy had lower rates of residual dysplasia. These prospectively collected, multicenter data provide better generalizable information to improve family education and appropriately set expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".