A Review of “Capture rate’’ Between Physicians and Care-giver Suspicion Leading to Diagnoses of Late-presenting DDH: A Single Centre perspective

Volume 6 | Issue 2 | May-August 2020 | Page: 7-11 | Atul Bhaskar, Purva Kansara

Authors : Atul Bhaskar [1][2], Purva Kansara [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
[2] Department of Orthopaedics, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Atul Bhaskar,
Hon.Paediatric Orthopaedic Surgeon, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: arb_25@yahoo.com


Background: The manifestations of DDH (Developmental Dysplasia of Hip) from newborn to walking age can go undetected due to several factors in the developing world. Lack of screening, reduced awareness amongst primary care physicians, socio-economic factors of family and access to healthcare facility. In many children the initial diagnosis is established only after an alert caregiver of physician notices suspicious asymmetry in gait pattern or limp.
The purpose of this review to compare the “capture’’ rate between physicians and caregivers suspicion that lead to the initial diagnosis of DDH and suggest strategies to enhance early detection of DDH.
Patient and Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted between January 2002 and December 2018 at a single surgeon specialty centre in Mumbai, India. All children with a diagnosis of idiopathic DDH were included. Syndromic and teratologic hips were excluded. The data recorded from the charts included the following: birth history, mode and presentation of delivery, breech or normal, first born or later, age at initial presentation, demographic data, and whether hailing from urban or semi-urban and rural areas, and initial awareness by physician or caregiver. Any associated anomalies, and the side of involvement and surgical intervention was also recorded.
Results: The median age of diagnosis of DDH in the study was 22 months (one week-10 years) but in bilateral DDH it was 32 months (p<.0001). Physicians diagnosed DDH primarily in 37 children (28%) and 95 children (70.45%) were brought to the attention by caregivers especially in semi-urban and rural areas (p<0.001). Eighty-five children (64.39%) were diagnosed in the walking ages between 12 months – 48 months. Ninety-eight children (74.24%) in the entire study required surgical intervention mainly due to the late diagnosis made after infancy.
Conclusion: Delay in diagnosis of idiopathic DDH has significant implications both for surgeons, caregivers, and health care service providers. Any suspicious gait or limp in a child at walking age should alert investigation to rule out DDH.


1. Singh M, Sharma NK. Spectrum of congenital malformations in the newborn. Ind J Pediatr. 1980; 47: 239–244.
2. Sankar WN, Weiss J, Skaggs DL. Orthopaedic conditions in the newborn. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17(2): 112–122.
3. Gupta AK, Kumar S, Arora PL, et al. Hip instability in newborns in an urban community. Nat Med J India. 1992; 5: 269–272.
4. Kaushal V., Kaushal SP., Bhakoo ON. Congenital dysplasia of the hip in Northern India. Int Surg. 1976; 61: 29.
5. Rebello G, Joseph B. Late presentation of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in children from southwest India – will screening help. Ind J Orthop, 2003; 37(4): 210-14.
6. Kocher MS. Ultrasonographic screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip: an epidemiologic analysis (Part I) Am J Orthop. 2000; 29(12): 929–33.
7. Graf R, Tschauner C, Klapsch W. Progress in prevention of late developmental dislocation of the hip by sonographic newborn “screening”: results of a comparative follow-up study. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1993; 115–21.
8. Sochart DH, Paton RW. Role of ultrasound assessment and harness treatment in the management of developmental dysplasia of the hip. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1996; 78: 505–8.
9. Castelein RM, Sauter AJ, de Vlieger M, et al. Natural history of ultrasound hip abnormalities in clinically normal newborns. J Pediatr Orthop. 1992; 12: 423–427.
10. Shorter D, Hong T, Osborn DA. Screening programmes for developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborn infants. Evid Based Child Health. 2013; 8(1): 11-54.
11. Biedermann R, RiccabonnaJ, Giesinger JM et al. Results of Universal Screening for developmental dysplasia of hip: a prospective follow up of 28, 092 consecutive infants. Bone Joint Surg, 2018:100-B (10), 1399-1404.
12. Castañeda P, Moscona L, Masrouha K. The effect of femoral shortening in the treatment of DDH after walking age. J Child Orthop. 2019; 13(4): 371-6
13. Nelson SE, DeFrancesco CJ, Sankar WN. Operative reduction for developmental dysplasia of the hip: Epidemiology over 16 years. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019; 39(4): 272-6.
14. Barlow TG. Early diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]1962;44-B:292–301.
15. Morin C, Wicart P. Congenital dislocation of hip, with late diagnosis after 1 year of age: Update and Management. Ortho & Trauma: Surg & Res.2012 98S:154-158
16. Zimri FK, Ali Shah SS, Saaiq M et al. Presentation and Management of Neglected Developmental Dyspalsia of Hip (DDH): 8 years’ experience with single stage triple procedure. Pak J Med Sci. 2018,34(3):682-686
17. Bhatti A, Kumar J, Butt SA. Outcome of one stage combined open reduction, pelvic and derotation femoral osteotomy in congenital dislocated hip of children younger than three years of age. J Pak Med Asso. 2014,64:1015-1020
18. Banskota AK, Paudel B, Pradhan I et al. Results of simultaneous open reduction and Salter innominate osteotomy for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ), 2005, 3:6-10
19. Lindberg AW, Bompadre V, Satchell EK et al. Patient factors associated with delay in diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of hip. J Child Ortho. 2017,11:223-228
20. Ganger R, Radler C, Petje G et al. Treatment options for developmental dislocation of hip after walking age. J Pediatr Orthp B,2005,14:139-150
21. Ortolani M. Un segno poco noto e suaimportanza per la diagnosiprecoce di prelussazione congenital dell’anca. Pediatria (Napoli) 1937; 45:129–136. (In Italian).
22 Kural B, Karapinar ED, Yilmazbas P et al. Risk factor assessment and Ten-years’ experience in DDH screening in a Well-Child Population. Biomed Res Int, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7213681.
23. Tonnis D. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1987. Congenital Dysplasia and Dislocation of Hip in Children and Adults.
24. Biedermann R, Eastwood DM. Universal or selective ultrasound screening for DDH? a discussion of the key issues. J Child Orthop. 2018 Aug 1;12(4):296-301
25. Choudry QA, Paton RW. Neonatal screening and selective sonographic screening in the diagnosis of DDH. Bone Joint J. 2018 Jun 1;100-B(6):806-810.
26. Broadhurst C, Rhodes AML, Harper P et al. What is the incidence of late detection of DDH in England? a 26-year national study of children diagnosed after one year. Bone Joint J. 2019 Mar;101-B(3):281-287.
27. Price KR, Dove R, Hunter JB. Current screening recommendations for DDH may lead to an increase in open reduction. Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:846–50.
28. Azzopardi T, Van Essen P, Cundy PJ et al. Late diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of hip: analysis of risk factors. J Pediatr Orthp B,2011;20:1-7
29. Gul R, Coffey JC, Khayyat G, Mc Guinness. Late presentation of DDH. Irish J Med Sci 2002; 171: 139-140.

How to Cite this Article: Bhaskar A | A Review of “capture rate’’ Between Physicians and Care-giver Suspicion Leading to Diagnoses of Late-presenting DDH: A Single Centre perspective | International Journal of Paediatric Orthopaedics | May-August 2020; 6(2): 07-11.

(Abstract)      (Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)