MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2024266255 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.g.00201

Gait Analysis of Children Treated for Clubfoot with Physical Therapy or the Ponseti Cast Technique

2008· article· en· W2024266255 sur OpenAlex
Ron El‐Hawary, Lori A. Karol, Kelly A. Jeans, B. Stephens Richards

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueFoot and Ankle Surgery
Établissements canadiensIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClubfootMedicineGaitSagittal planeGait analysisAnklePonseti methodCadencePhysical therapySurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Currently, clubfoot is initially treated with nonoperative methods including the Ponseti cast technique and the French functional physical therapy program. Our goal was to evaluate the function of children treated with these techniques. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of 182 patients with idiopathic clubfoot (273 feet) who were initially treated nonoperatively. Seventy-seven patients (119 feet) were excluded because they had either received a combination of nonoperative treatments or had undergone surgery prior to testing. Gait analysis was performed when the children were approximately two years of age. Temporal and kinematic data were classified as abnormal if they were more than one standard deviation from normal. RESULTS: Gait analysis was performed on 105 patients (fifty-six treated with casts and forty-nine treated with physical therapy) with 154 involved feet (seventy-nine treated with casts and seventy-five treated with physical therapy). These patients were an average of two years and three months of age, and their initial Diméglio scores ranged between 10 and 17. No significant differences in cadence parameters were found between the two groups. The rate of normal kinematic ankle motion in the sagittal plane was higher in the group treated with physical therapy (65% of the feet) than it was in the group treated with the Ponseti cast technique (47%) (p = 0.0317). More children treated with physical therapy walked with knee hyperextension (37% of the feet) (p < 0.0001), an equinus gait (15%) (p = 0.0051), and footdrop (19%) (p = 0.0072); only one patient treated with casts walked with an equinus gait, and only three demonstrated footdrop. In contrast, more of the patients in the cast-treatment group demonstrated excessive stance-phase dorsiflexion (48% of the feet) (p < 0.0001) and a calcaneus gait (10%). More feet in the physical therapy group had an increased internal foot progression angle (44% compared with 24% in the cast-treatment group; p = 0.0144) and increased shank-based foot rotation (73% compared with 57% in the cast-treatment group; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While the rate of normal kinematic ankle motion in the sagittal plane was 65% in the group treated with physical therapy, the gait abnormalities that were seen in that group were characterized by mild equinus and/or footdrop. The rate of normal kinematic ankle motion in the sagittal plane was 47% in the cast-treatment group, but the most common gait abnormality in this group was mildly increased dorsiflexion in the stance phase. The rates of calcaneus gait and equinus gait were <or=15% in each nonoperative group. The differences between the physical therapy and cast-treatment groups may, in part, be the result of the percutaneous Achilles tendon lengthening that is performed as part of the Ponseti cast technique but not as part of the physical therapy program.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,073
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,237

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle