-
Pediatrics Feb 2022Idiopathic congenital clubfoot is the most common serious musculoskeletal birth defect in the United States and the world. The natural history of the deformity is to... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic congenital clubfoot is the most common serious musculoskeletal birth defect in the United States and the world. The natural history of the deformity is to persist into adult life with a significant decrease in function and quality of life. The Ponseti method (serial casting, Achilles tenotomy, and bracing of the clubfoot) has become the most effective and accepted treatment of children born with clubfoot worldwide. The treatment is successful, particularly when the Ponseti-trained practitioner (often a pediatric orthopedic surgeon), the primary care clinician, and the family work together to facilitate success. An important factor in the ultimate success of the Ponseti method is parental understanding of the bracing phase. There is a very high rate of recurrent deformity when bracing is not done properly or is stopped prematurely. The importance of positive education and support for the parents to complete the entire treatment protocol cannot be overstated. The goal of treatment is a deformity-free, functional, comfortable foot. Ponseti clubfoot programs have been launched in most countries throughout the world, including many countries with limited resources. Ultimately, the goal is that every infant born with a clubfoot will have access to care with the Ponseti method. This clinical report is intended for medical practitioners who are involved in the care of pediatric patients with clubfoot. Understanding the standard of care will help these practitioners to care for patients and their families.
Topics: Braces; Clubfoot; Humans; Tenotomy; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 35104362
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2021-055555 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Feb 2015Adult flatfoot is defined as a flattening of the medial arch of the foot in weight-bearing and lack of a propulsive gait. The 3 lesion levels are the talonavicular,... (Review)
Review
Adult flatfoot is defined as a flattening of the medial arch of the foot in weight-bearing and lack of a propulsive gait. The 3 lesion levels are the talonavicular, tibiotarsal and midfoot joints. The subtalar joint is damaged by the consequent rotational defects. Clinical examination determines deformity and reducibility, and assesses any posterior tibialis muscle deficit, the posterior tibialis tendon and spring ligament being frequently subject to degenerative lesions. Radiographic examination in 3 incidences in weight-bearing is essential, to determine the principal level of deformity. Tendon (posterior tibialis tendon) and ligamentous lesions (spring ligament and interosseous ligament) are analyzed on MRI or ultrasound. In fixed deformities, CT explores for arthritic evolution or specific etiologies. 3D CT reconstruction can analyze bone and joint morphology and contribute to the planning of any osteotomy. Medical management associates insoles and physiotherapy. Acute painful flatfoot requires strict cast immobilization. Surgical treatment associates numerous combinations of procedures, currently under assessment for supple flatfoot: for the hindfoot: medial slide calcaneal osteotomy, calcaneal lengthening osteotomy, or arthroereisis; for the midfoot: arthrodesis on one or several rays, or first cuneiform or first metatarsal osteotomy; for the ankle: medial collateral ligament repair with tendon transfer. Fixed deformities require arthrodesis of one or several joint-lines in the hindfoot; for the ankle, total replacement after realignment of the foot, or tibiotalocalcaneal fusion or ankle and hindfoot fusion; and, for the midfoot, cuneonavicular or cuneometatarsal fusion. Tendinous procedures are often associated. Specific etiologies may need individualized procedures. In conclusion, adult flatfoot tends to be diagnosed and managed too late, with consequent impact on the ankle, the management of which is complex and poorly codified.
Topics: Adult; Diagnostic Imaging; Flatfoot; Foot Joints; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Orthotic Devices; Osteoarthritis; Physical Examination; Shoes
PubMed: 25595429
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.07.030 -
Australian Journal of General Practice May 2020Flat foot (pes planus) describes a reduction or absence of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot, with or without additional deformities of the foot and ankle....
BACKGROUND
Flat foot (pes planus) describes a reduction or absence of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot, with or without additional deformities of the foot and ankle. Flat feet are relatively common in childhood, affecting up to 14% of children. Flexible flat feet can be part of a normal developmental profile, and foot arches usually develop with age, although there is a wide range of normal variation. Up to 25% of the total population has a deficient MLA in at least one foot; therefore, it is likely a general practitioner (GP) will encounter this issue relatively frequently in their practice.
OBJECTIVE
This article outlines a method for paediatric pes planus assessment and management. A multidisciplinary approach involving GPs, rehabilitation physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, orthotists and podiatrists is discussed.
DISCUSSION
Paediatric pes planus treatment has long been a contentious topic, with a lack of clarity in the literature regarding which children require treatment and the efficacy of intervention. However, there is increasing evidence that non-surgical interventions, such as orthoses and physiotherapy, may be beneficial for certain groups of children.
Topics: Disease Management; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Pediatrics; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 32416653
DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-09-19-5089 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no optimal strategy, nor consensus, for using foot orthoses (FOs) to treat paediatric flat feet.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to 01 September 2021, and two clinical trials registers on 07 August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We identified all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FOs as an intervention for paediatric flat feet. The outcomes included in this review were pain, function, quality of life, treatment success, and adverse events. Intended comparisons were: any FOs versus sham, any FOs versus shoes, customised FOs (CFOs) versus prefabricated FOs (PFOs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard methods recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials with 1058 children, aged 11 months to 19 years, with flexible flat feet. Distinct flat foot presentations included asymptomatic, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), symptomatic and developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD). The trial interventions were FOs, footwear, foot and rehabilitative exercises, and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Due to heterogeneity, we did not pool the data. Most trials had potential for selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting bias. No trial blinded participants. We present the results separately for asymptomatic (healthy children) and symptomatic (children with JIA) flat feet. The certainty of evidence was very low to low, downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness. Three comparisons were evaluated across trials: CFO versus shoes; PFO versus shoes; CFO versus PFO. Asymptomatic flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low-quality evidence showed that CFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.07); absolute decrease (11.8%, 95% CI 4.7% fewer to 15.8% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19); absolute effect (3.4% more, 95% CI 4.1% fewer to 13.1% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low to very-low quality evidence showed that PFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point VAS) at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16); absolute effect (4.7% fewer, 95% CI 18.9% fewer to 12.6% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.23). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (1 trial, 108 participants): low-quality evidence found no difference in the proportion without pain at one year (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18); absolute effect (7.4% fewer, 95% CI 22.2% fewer to 11.1% more); or on withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). Function and quality of life (QoL) were not assessed. Symptomatic (JIA) flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 28 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) between groups (MD -1.5, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.22). Low-quality evidence showed improvements in function with CFOs (Foot Function Index - FFI disability, 0 to 100, 0 best function; MD -18.55, 95% CI -34.42 to -2.68), child-rated QoL (PedsQL, 0 to 100, 100 best quality; MD 12.1, 95% CI -1.6 to 25.8) and parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 9, 95% CI -4.1 to 22.1) and little or no difference between groups in treatment success (timed walking; MD -1.33 seconds, 95% CI -2.77 to 0.11), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.94); absolute difference (9.7% fewer, 20.5 % fewer to 44.8% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 25 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain between groups (MD 0.02, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.98). Low-quality evidence showed no difference between groups in function (FFI-disability MD -4.17, 95% CI -24.4 to 16.06), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -3.84, 95% CI -19 to 11.33), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -0.64, 95% CI -13.22 to 11.94). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (2 trials, 87 participants): low-quality evidence showed little or no difference between groups in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) at 3 months (MD -1.48, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.26), function (FFI-disability MD -7.28, 95% CI -15.47 to 0.92), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 8.6, 95% CI -3.9 to 21.2), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 2.9, 95% CI -11 to 16.8).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low-certainty evidence shows that the effect of CFOs (high cost) or PFOs (low cost) versus shoes, and CFOs versus PFOs on pain, function and HRQoL is uncertain. This is pertinent for clinical practice, given the economic disparity between CFOs and PFOs. FOs may improve pain and function, versus shoes in children with JIA, with minimal delineation between costly CFOs and generic PFOs. This review updates that from 2010, confirming that in the absence of pain, the use of high-cost CFOs for healthy children with flexible flat feet has no supporting evidence, and draws very limited conclusions about FOs for treating paediatric flat feet. The availability of normative and prospective foot development data, dismisses most flat foot concerns, and negates continued attention to this topic. Attention should be re-directed to relevant paediatric foot conditions, which cause pain, limit function, or reduce quality of life. The agenda for researching asymptomatic flat feet in healthy children must be relegated to history, and replaced by a targeted research rationale, addressing children with indisputable foot pathology from discrete diagnoses, namely JIA, cerebral palsy, congenital talipes equino varus, trisomy 21 and Charcot Marie Tooth. Whether research resources should continue to be wasted on studying flat feet in healthy children that do not hurt, is questionable. Future updates of this review will address only relevant paediatric foot conditions.
Topics: Child; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35080267
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006311.pub4 -
Journal of Physiotherapy Jan 2023In people with flexible flat foot, what is the effect of a comprehensive exercise program on navicular drop height and medial longitudinal arch angle compared with a... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
QUESTION
In people with flexible flat foot, what is the effect of a comprehensive exercise program on navicular drop height and medial longitudinal arch angle compared with a control regimen of brief active range of motion exercises?
DESIGN
Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinding of assessors and intention-to-treat analysis.
PARTICIPANTS
Fifty-two people with flexible flat foot.
INTERVENTION
The experimental group undertook 30-minute exercise sessions three times per week for 6 weeks. The exercises involved active dorsiflexion and plantarflexion, foot shortening exercises, gluteal muscle strengthening, and stretching. The control group performed active dorsiflexion and plantarflexion only for 6 weeks.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Navicular drop height and longitudinal arch angle.
RESULTS
Randomisation allocated 26 participants to each group. One participant from the experimental group and two from the control group did not complete the study. After 6 weeks, the participants in the experimental group improved their navicular drop height by 0.4 cm (95% CI 0.4 to 0.5) more than those in the control group. These participants also improved their longitudinal arch angle by 16 deg (95% CI 13 to 19) more than those in the control group.
CONCLUSION
In people with flexible flat foot, a comprehensive 6-week exercise program improved the navicular drop height and longitudinal arch angle more than active dorsiflexion and plantarflexion alone. This improved the cosmetic appearance of the foot and reduced progression towards more severe flat foot, which typically becomes symptomatic.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CTRI/2021/07/034599.
Topics: Humans; Flatfoot; Foot; Exercise Therapy; Muscle, Skeletal
PubMed: 36526555
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphys.2022.11.011 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Science :... Jan 2019We describe the pathology and treatment of flexible flat foot in children. The flexible flat foot is seen in the overly flexible foot and usually involves hypermobility...
We describe the pathology and treatment of flexible flat foot in children. The flexible flat foot is seen in the overly flexible foot and usually involves hypermobility of the subtalar joint. It typically occurs in childhood and may continue to adulthood. The arch develops spontaneously during the first decade of life in most children and comes within the normal range observed in adult feet. We prescribed orthoses for the treatment of flexible flat foot patients. Lateral weight-bearing radiographs and ultrasonography were helpful for the evaluation of the flat foot. Bleck recommended the UCBL shoe insert in cases of flexible flat foot if the standing or lateral rentgenogram demonstrates a talar plantar flexion angle (TPF) of 45° or greater. Bordelon suggested that cases of flexible flat foot should be treated if the standing or lateral roentgenogram demonstrates a Meary's talo-1st metatarsal angle (T1-MTA) of -15°or greater. However, the radiograph of a young child's foot poses some difficulties in making an accurate evaluation, because of the radiolucent cartilage zone. In this situation, a sagittal image obtained by ultrasonography has proved to be a powerful aid to evaluate the type of the flat foot. We classified the flat foot into three types: talo-navicular sag (T-N sag), naviculo-cuneiform sag (NC sag) and talo-navicular and naviculo-cuneiform sag (Mixed sag) following the criteria of Tachdjian. We recommended the NC sag and Mixed sag groups to be treated by using orthoses, while we kept a status of watchful waiting for the T-N sag group. However, we should consider the increasing complaints of children and their parents during the orthotic treatment. A through discussion between the parents of patients and the pediatric orthopedic doctors is necessary before orthotic treatment is started.
Topics: Child; Disease Management; Flatfoot; Humans; Orthotic Devices; Radiography; Tarsal Bones; Weight-Bearing
PubMed: 30366675
DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2018.09.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no optimal strategy, nor consensus, for using foot orthoses (FOs) to treat paediatric flat feet.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to 01 September 2021, and two clinical trials registers on 07 August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We identified all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FOs as an intervention for paediatric flat feet. The outcomes included in this review were pain, function, quality of life, treatment success, and adverse events. Intended comparisons were: any FOs versus sham, any FOs versus shoes, customised FOs (CFOs) versus prefabricated FOs (PFOs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard methods recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials with 1058 children, aged 11 months to 19 years, with flexible flat feet. Distinct flat foot presentations included asymptomatic, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), symptomatic and developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD). The trial interventions were FOs, footwear, foot and rehabilitative exercises, and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Due to heterogeneity, we did not pool the data. Most trials had potential for selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting bias. No trial blinded participants. We present the results separately for asymptomatic (healthy children) and symptomatic (children with JIA) flat feet. The certainty of evidence was very low to low, downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness. Three comparisons were evaluated across trials: CFO versus shoes; PFO versus shoes; CFO versus PFO. Asymptomatic flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low-quality evidence showed that CFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.07); absolute decrease (11.8%, 95% CI 4.7% fewer to 15.8% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19); absolute effect (3.4% more, 95% CI 4.1% fewer to 13.1% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low to very-low quality evidence showed that PFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point VAS) at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16); absolute effect (4.7% fewer, 95% CI 18.9% fewer to 12.6% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.23). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (1 trial, 108 participants): low-quality evidence found no difference in the proportion without pain at one year (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18); absolute effect (7.4% fewer, 95% CI 22.2% fewer to 11.1% more); or on withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). Function and quality of life (QoL) were not assessed. Symptomatic (JIA) flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 28 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) between groups (MD -1.5, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.22). Low-quality evidence showed improvements in function with CFOs (Foot Function Index - FFI disability, 0 to 100, 0 best function; MD -18.55, 95% CI -34.42 to -2.68), child-rated QoL (PedsQL, 0 to 100, 100 best quality; MD 12.1, 95% CI -1.6 to 25.8) and parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 9, 95% CI -4.1 to 22.1) and little or no difference between groups in treatment success (timed walking; MD -1.33 seconds, 95% CI -2.77 to 0.11), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.94); absolute difference (9.7% fewer, 20.5 % fewer to 44.8% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 25 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain between groups (MD 0.02, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.98). Low-quality evidence showed no difference between groups in function (FFI-disability MD -4.17, 95% CI -24.4 to 16.06), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -3.84, 95% CI -19 to 11.33), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -0.64, 95% CI -13.22 to 11.94). 3. CFOs versus PFsO (2 trials, 87 participants): low-quality evidence showed little or no difference between groups in pain (0 to scale, 0 no pain) at 3 months (MD -1.48, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.26), function (FFI-disability MD -7.28, 95% CI -15.47 to 0.92), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 8.6, 95% CI -3.9 to 21.2), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 2.9, 95% CI -11 to 16.8).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low-certainty evidence shows that the effect of CFOs (high cost) or PFOs (low cost) versus shoes, and CFOs versus PFOs on pain, function and HRQoL is uncertain. This is pertinent for clinical practice, given the economic disparity between CFOs and PFOs. FOs may improve pain and function, versus shoes in children with JIA, with minimal delineation between costly CFOs and generic PFOs. This review updates that from 2010, confirming that in the absence of pain, the use of high-cost CFOs for healthy children with flexible flat feet has no supporting evidence, and draws very limited conclusions about FOs for treating paediatric flat feet. The availability of normative and prospective foot development data, dismisses most flat foot concerns, and negates continued attention to this topic. Attention should be re-directed to relevant paediatric foot conditions, which cause pain, limit function, or reduce quality of life. The agenda for researching asymptomatic flat feet in healthy children must be relegated to history, and replaced by a targeted research rationale, addressing children with indisputable foot pathology from discrete diagnoses, namely JIA, cerebral palsy, congenital talipes equino varus, trisomy 21 and Charcot Marie Tooth. Whether research resources should continue to be wasted on studying flat feet in healthy children that do not hurt, is questionable. Future updates of this review will address only relevant paediatric foot conditions.
Topics: Child; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35029841
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006311.pub3 -
European Journal of Physical and... Mar 2011The pediatric flat foot is a frequent presentation in clinical practice, a common concern to parents and continues to be debated within professional ranks. As an entity,... (Review)
Review
The pediatric flat foot is a frequent presentation in clinical practice, a common concern to parents and continues to be debated within professional ranks. As an entity, it is confused by varied classifications, the notion of well-intended prevention and unsubstantiated, if common, treatment. The available prevalence estimates are all limited by variable sampling, assessment measures and age groups and hence result in disparate findings (0.6-77.9%). Consistently, flat foot has been found to normally reduce with age. The normal findings of flat foot versus children's age estimates that approximately 45% of preschool children, and 15% of older children (average age 10 years) have flat feet. Few flexible flat feet have been found to be symptomatic. Joint hypermobility and increased weight or obesity may increase flat foot prevalence, independently of age. Most attempts at classification of flat foot morphology include the arch, heel position and foot flexibility. Usual assessment methods are footprint measures, X-rays and visual (scaled) observations. There is no standardized framework from which to evaluate the pediatric flat foot. The pediatric flat foot is often unnecessarily treated, being ill-defined and of uncertain prognosis. Contemporary management of the pediatric flat foot is directed algorithmically within this review, according to pain, age, flexibility; considering gender, weight, and joint hypermobility. When foot orthoses are indicated, inexpensive generic appliances will usually suffice. Customised foot orthoses should be reserved for children with foot pain and arthritis, for unusual morphology, or unresponsive cases. Surgery is rarely indicated for pediatric flat foot (unless rigid) and only at the failure of thorough conservative management. The assessment of the pediatric flatfoot needs to be considered with reference to the epidemiological findings, where there is consensus that pediatric flexible flat foot reduces with age and that most children are asymptomatic. Globally, there is need for a standard by which the pediatric flat foot is assessed classified and managed. Until then, assessment should utilize the available evidence-based management model, the p-FFP Future research needs to evaluate the pediatric flat foot from representative samples, of healthy and known disease-group children prospectively, and using validated assessment instruments. The preliminary findings of the benefits of foot exercises, and discrete investigation into the effects of shoes and footwear use are also warranted.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Evidence-Based Practice; Flatfoot; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Orthotic Devices; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 21448121
DOI: No ID Found -
PloS One 2017Congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV), also known as clubfoot, is common congenital orthopedic foot deformity in children characterized by four components of foot... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV), also known as clubfoot, is common congenital orthopedic foot deformity in children characterized by four components of foot deformities: hindfoot equinus, hindfoot varus, midfoot cavus, and forefoot adduction. Although a number of conservative and surgical methods have been proposed to correct the clubfoot deformity, the relapses of the clubfoot are not uncommon. Several previous literatures discussed about the technical details of Ponseti method, adherence of Ponseti protocol among walking age or older children. However there is a necessity to investigate the relapse pattern, compliance of bracing, number of casts used in treatment and the percentages of surgical referral under two years of age for clear understanding and better practice to achieve successful outcome without or reduce relapse. Therefore this study aims to review the current evidence of Ponseti method (manipulation, casting, percutaneous Achilles tenotomy, and bracing) in the management of clubfoot under two years of age.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Articles were searched from 2000 to 2015, in the following databases to identify the effectiveness of Ponseti method treatment for clubfoot: Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), PubMed, and Scopus. The database searches were limited to articles published in English, and articles were focused on the effectiveness of Ponseti method on children with less than 2 years of age.
RESULTS
Of the outcome of 1095 articles from four electronic databases, twelve articles were included in the review. Pirani scoring system, Dimeglio scoring system, measuring the range of motion and rate of relapses were used as outcome measures.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, all reviewed, 12 articles reported that Ponseti method is a very effective method to correct the clubfoot deformities. However, we noticed that relapses occur in nine studies, which is due to the non-adherence of bracing regime and other factors such as low income and social economic status.
Topics: Animals; Clubfoot; Disease Management; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures
PubMed: 28632733
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178299 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine the effects of the short-foot exercise (SFE) compared to foot orthosis or other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine the effects of the short-foot exercise (SFE) compared to foot orthosis or other types of interventions. Eligibility criteria involved participants with flatfoot engaging in the SFE compared to other forms of intervention or control groups without specific intervention. Relevant studies published before the end of June 2022 were identified from databases. A meta-analysis was performed by calculating the mean differences (MD) and standard MD (SMD) using the random effects model. Six trials with 201 patients (out of 609 records) that met selection criteria were reviewed. Five of the six trials implemented distinct interventions in the control group such as shoe insoles and muscle strengthening exercises, while in the remaining trial, controls received no intervention. The SFE group significantly reduced the navicular drop test (NDT) values (MD: -0.23; 95% confidence interval: -0.45 to -0.02; = 0.04) and the foot posture index (FPI-6) score (MD: -0.67; 95% confidence interval: -0.98 to -0.36; < 0.0001) when compared to the control group. The muscle hypertrophy did not differ significantly between the groups. The SFE may contribute more benefits than other intervention as it affects flatfoot individuals' foot alignment. Hence, the SFE is recommended as a beneficial dynamic support when facing flatfoot problems.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Flatfoot; Foot; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscles
PubMed: 36231295
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911994