Search

Aims: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) can be managed effectively with non-surgical interventions when diagnosed early. However, the likelihood of surgical intervention increases with a late presentation. Therefore, an effective screening programme is essential to prevent late diagnosis and reduce surgical morbidity in the population. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiological literature from the last 25 years in the UK. Articles were selected from databases searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane; 13 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results: The incidence of DDH within the UK over the last 25 years is 7.3/1,000 live births with females making up 86% of the DDH population (odds ratio 6.14 (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 11.5); p < 0.001). The incidence of DDH significantly increased following the change in the Newborn and Infant Physical Examination (NIPE) guidance from 6.5/1,000 to 9.4/1,000 live births (p < 0.001). The rate of late presentation also increased following the changes to the NIPE guidance, rising from 0.7/1,000 to 1.2/1,000 live births (p < 0.001). However, despite this increase in late-presenting cases, there was no change in the rates of surgical intervention (0.8/1,000 live births; p = 0.940). Conclusion: The literature demonstrates that the implementation of a selective screening programme increased the incidence of DDH diagnosis in the UK while subsequently increasing the rates of late presentation and failing in its goal of reducing the rates of surgical intervention for DDH. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):635–642.

Aims: Early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is associated with improved outcomes of conservative treatment. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate a novel screening programme that included both the primary risk factors of breech presentation and family history, and the secondary risk factors of oligohydramnios and foot deformities. Methods: A five-year prospective registry study investigating every live birth in the study’s catchment area (n = 27,731), all of whom underwent screening for risk factors and examination at the newborn and six- to eight-week neonatal examination and review. DDH was diagnosed using ultrasonography and the Graf classification system, defined as grade IIb or above or rapidly regressing IIa disease (≥4o at four weeks follow-up). Multivariate odds ratios were calculated to establish significant association, and risk differences were calculated to provide quantifiable risk increase with DDH, positive predictive value was used as a measure of predictive efficacy. The cost-effectiveness of using these risk factors to predict DDH was evaluated using NHS tariffs (January 2021). Results: The prevalence of DDH that required treatment within our population was 5/1,000 live births. The rate of missed presentation of DDH was 0.43/1000 live births. Breech position, family history, oligohydramnios, and foot deformities demonstrated significant association with DDH (p < 0.0001). The presence of breech presentation increased the risk of DDH by 1.69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93% to 2.45%), family history by 3.57% (95% CI 2.06% to 5.09%), foot deformities by 8.95% (95% CI 4.81% to 13.1%), and oligohydramnios nby 11.6% (95 % CI 3.0% to 19.0%). Primary risk factors family history and breech presentation demonstrated an estimated cost-per-case detection of £6,276 and £11,409, respectively. Oligohydramnios and foot deformities demonstrated a cost-per-case detected less than the cost of primary risk factors of £2,260 and £2,670, respectively. Conclusion: The inclusion of secondary risk factors within a national screening programme was clinically successful as they were more cost and resource-efficient predictors of DDH than primary risk factors, suggesting they should be considered in the national guidance. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):234–240.

Aims: Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. Methods: This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results: The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a “poor” understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. Conclusion: There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549–556.