Steven Garcia1, Leah Demetri1, Ana Starcevich2, Andrew Gatto3, Ishaan Swarup4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA. 3. Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, CA, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Ishaan.Swarup@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many aspects of developmental hip dysplasia (DDH) care and evaluation are still active areas of debate. Recent studies have provided more insight into these topics such as strategies for reducing osteonecrosis, assessing hip reduction after closed and open reduction, and the management of residual acetabular dysplasia. RECENT FINDINGS: The presence of the ossific nucleus at the time of reduction does not alter the risk of osteonecrosis. The risk of osteonecrosis may be higher when hips are immobilized in excessive abduction. Limited sequence MRI may be the best choice for assessing hip reduction after closed and open reduction; however, new technologies are emerging such as 3D fluoroscopy and perfusion MRI. The treatment of residual acetabular dysplasia with bracing has been shown to be effective and the decision to perform a pelvic osteotomy is based on patient-specific factors. The spectrum of DDH treatment has evolved over the past several decades. Recent studies have provided insights into strategies for osteonecrosis prevention, hip evaluation during after reduction, and the management of residual acetabular dysplasia. However, there is ample room for additional and more rigorous studies guiding advanced imaging for assessing hip reduction such as 3D fluoroscopy and perfusion MRI, as well as the management of residual acetabular dysplasia.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many aspects of developmental hip dysplasia (DDH) care and evaluation are still active areas of debate. Recent studies have provided more insight into these topics such as strategies for reducing osteonecrosis, assessing hip reduction after closed and open reduction, and the management of residual acetabular dysplasia. RECENT FINDINGS: The presence of the ossific nucleus at the time of reduction does not alter the risk of osteonecrosis. The risk of osteonecrosis may be higher when hips are immobilized in excessive abduction. Limited sequence MRI may be the best choice for assessing hip reduction after closed and open reduction; however, new technologies are emerging such as 3D fluoroscopy and perfusion MRI. The treatment of residual acetabular dysplasia with bracing has been shown to be effective and the decision to perform a pelvic osteotomy is based on patient-specific factors. The spectrum of DDH treatment has evolved over the past several decades. Recent studies have provided insights into strategies for osteonecrosis prevention, hip evaluation during after reduction, and the management of residual acetabular dysplasia. However, there is ample room for additional and more rigorous studies guiding advanced imaging for assessing hip reduction such as 3D fluoroscopy and perfusion MRI, as well as the management of residual acetabular dysplasia.
Authors: Nicholas M P Clarke; Isabel C Reading; Charles Corbin; Colm C Taylor; Thomas Bochmann Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Bilal M Barkatali; Herbert Imalingat; James Childs; Andreas Baumann; Robin Paton Journal: J Pediatr Orthop B Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Ali Ashraf; A Noelle Larson; Hilal Maradit-Kremers; Walter K Kremers; David G Lewallen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Catharine S Bradley; Daniel C Perry; John H Wedge; M L Murnaghan; Simon P Kelley Journal: J Child Orthop Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 1.548