Introduction. Selective screening of children at risk for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is based on clinical examination and risk factor identification. Two meta-analyses published in 2012 found breech presentation, family history of DDH, female sex and primiparity to increase the risk of DDH. However, the DDH definition, reference tests and age of the examined children vary considerably, complicating the translation of those findings to current screening guidelines. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association of previously proposed risk factors to the risk of sonographically verified DDH. Method. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library to identify cohort, RCTs, case-control and cross-sectional studies from 1980 to 2023 in English language. Eligible studies included participants under three months of age, where the diagnosis of DDH was made by hip ultrasound using the gold standard Graf method and reported information on one or more of the proposed risk factors and final diagnosis was available. Result. Of 5363 studies screened, 20 studies (n=64543 children) were included. Breech presentation (OR: 4.2, 95%CI 2.6-6.6), family history (3.8, 95%CI 2.1-7.2), female sex (2.5, 95%CI 1.7-3.6), oligohydramnios (3.8, 95%CI 1.7-8.5) and high birthweight (2.0, 95%CI 1.6-2.5) significantly increased the risk of DDH. C-section, primiparity, multiple births, low birthweight and prematurity were not found to increase the risk for DDH, and there was only one study about clubfoot as a risk factor. Heterogeneity was high (I. 2. >75%) in all the tested factors except high birthweight (I. 2. =0%). Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate these heterogeneities. Conclusion. Family history of DDH and breech presentation are associated with significant increase of the risk of sonographic DDH in children aged three months. A similar risk increase was detected for oligohydramnios, which was not detected in previous meta-analyses. Additionally, the DDH risk increase of female sex was found to be lower than previously reported

Abstract. Objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost of inpatient admissions for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) at a UK tertiary referral centre, and identify any association between newborn screening (NIPE) status and the cost of treatment. Methods. This was a retrospective study, using hospital episodes data from a single NHS trust. All inpatient episodes between 01/01/2014 to 30/06/2019 with an ICD-10 code stem of Q65 ‘congenital deformities of hip’ were screened to identify admissions for management of DDH. Data was subsequently obtained from electronic and paper records. Newborn screening status was recorded, and patients were divided into ‘NIPE-positive’ (diagnosed through selective screening) and ‘NIPE-negative’ (not diagnosed through screening). Children with neuromuscular conditions or concomitant musculoskeletal disease were excluded. The tariff paid for each inpatient episode was identified, and the number of individual clinic attendances, surgical procedures and radiological examinations performed (USS, XR, CT, MRI) were recorded. Results. 41 patients with DDH were admitted for inpatient management. 44% (n = 18) were NIPE-positive, diagnosed mean age 6.7 weeks. 56% (n = 23) were NIPE-negative, diagnosed mean age 26 months. The total cost of inpatient care in the NIPE-positive group was £171,471 (£9,526.18 per-patient) compared to £306,615 (£13,331.10 per-patient) for NIPE-negative. In the NIPE-positive group, there were 99 clinic attendances, 47 inpatient admissions and 160 radiological examinations performed (36 USS, 107 XR, 17 CT). This compared to 148 clinic attendances, 59 inpatient admissions and 215 radiological examinations (187 XR, 26 CT, 2 MRI) in the NIPE-negative group. Conclusion. A greater proportion of inpatient admissions for DDH are among NIPE-negative children. They incur a higher cost of treatment per patient and necessitate more inpatient resources. This study adds to the ongoing conversation around the cost-effectiveness of selective screening for DDH in the UK. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project