Reproducibility of different screening classifications in ultrasonography of the newborn hip

• Published in: BMC pediatrics 2010-12, Vol.10 (1), p.98-98, Article 98
• Main Authors: Peterlein, Christian D, Schüttler, Karl F, Lakemeier, Stefan, Timmesfeld, Nina, Görg, Christian, Fuchs-Winkelmann, Susanne, Schofer, Markus D
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agreements; Care and treatment; Data collection; Diagnosis; Dysplasia; Female; Femur Head - pathology; Femur Head - ultrastructure; Health aspects; Hip - diagnostic imaging; Hip - pathology; Hip Dislocation, Congenital - classification; Hip Dislocation, Congenital - diagnostic imaging; Hip Dislocation, Congenital - pathology; Hip joint; Hospitals; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infants (Newborn); Male; Methods; Neonatal Screening - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Ultrasonography; Ultrasound imaging
• ISSN: 1471-2431; 1471-2431
• DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-10-98

Ultrasonography of the hip has gained wide acceptance as a primary method for diagnosis, screening and treatment monitoring of developmental hip dysplasia in infants. The aim of the study was to examine the degree of concordance of two objective classifications of hip morphology and subjective parameters by three investigators with different levels of experience. In 207 consecutive newborns (101 boys; 106 girls) the following parameters were assessed: bony roof angle (α-angle) and cartilage roof angle (β-angle) according to Graf's basic standard method, "femoral head coverage" (FHC) as described by Terjesen, shape of the bony roof and position of the cartilaginous roof. Both hips were measured twice by each investigator with a 7.5 MHz linear transducer (SONOLINE G60S® ultrasound system, SIEMENS, Erlangen, Germany). Mean kappa-coefficients for the subjective parameters shape of the bony roof (0.97) and position of the cartilaginous roof (1.0) demonstrated high intra-observer reproducibility. Best results were achieved for α-angle, followed by β-angle and finally FHC. With respect to limits of agreement, inter-observer reproducibility was calculated less precisely. Higher measurement differences were evaluated more in objective scorings. Those variations were observed by every investigator irrespective of level of experience.