MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2800832417 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.17.01457

Does the Ponseti Method for Clubfoot Treatment Stand Up to the March of Time?

2018· letter· en· W2800832417 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Mervyn Letts

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2018
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueFoot and Ankle Surgery
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClubfootPonseti methodMedicineDeformityFoot (prosody)Congenital talipes equinovarusPediatricsSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Commentary What can we advise parents about the long-term results expected from the correction of their child’s clubfoot deformity with the Ponseti method? This meticulous 5-year review tells us that there’s a 62% chance of a relapse and a 38% rate of additional surgery (tendon transfer), but that by the age of 5 years, their child should have a cosmetically acceptable, functional foot. These findings are similar to those of the Iowa group1 some 55 years ago and those of Bor et al.2 in 2009. These analyses are important not only from a clinical-treatment point of view but also for prenatal counseling. I well recall being asked to counsel parents of a 4-month fetus in whom a clubfoot had been diagnosed on ultrasound. The parents were requesting an abortion on the basis of the foot deformity! Statistics from this review would have been a great help in reassuring them that their son’s foot deformity could be corrected; ultimately, it was corrected, as they fortunately did not terminate the pregnancy3. What about the 10 years to follow-up at skeletal maturity? We were told by the Iowa group that few relapses occurred after the age of 5 years, but this needs substantiation as well. The prevalence and severity of clubfeet also vary in different geographic areas. In regions where clubfeet are familial, such as Middle Eastern countries or areas with Hawaiian or Canadian aboriginals, the clubfeet are often more rigid, akin to syndromic clubfeet. We need more long-term follow-up data from these areas to assess the global efficacy of the Ponseti method. Also, one of the problems in any review of clubfeet is trying to compare the various severities of the deformities. Even the idiopathic group in this review had variations in severity. The more severe the deformity, the greater the relapse rate and the greater the need for tibialis anterior transfers. The tibialis anterior transfer as recommended by the authors (transfer of the whole tendon under the extensor retinaculum to the lateral cuneiform, held by a cushioned button on the sole of the foot) is an excellent technique and one that I have used with great success for decades. What is still a gray zone, however, is the best timing for the tibialis anterior transfer. My opinion has always been to not risk leaving the transfer until it is too late. If the foot still tends to be in persistent varus after the patient reaches the age of 3 years, proceed with the transfer while the foot is still growing rapidly and can respond to the valgus force of the transfer. Post-cast bracing with a Denis-Browne or similar splint is a critical part of the Ponseti method. Attention to detail here is as important as the casting phase is. Brace failure is often the cause of relapse, in my experience. It is of the utmost importance to ensure parent buy-in via a heart-to-heart discussion with both parents, preferably with the clinician, to emphasize the importance of brace wear in the successful treatment of their child’s clubfoot. If the parents are not on board with the brace treatment, their negative feelings will be subtly transmitted to the child and brace rejection will occur. In older children, to enhance the efficacy of brace management, the child should sleep in only leather boots (never in Oxford-type shoes, as they will ultimately be kicked off) until the boots essentially become part of their pajamas. The feet are then held straight forward on the brace for another week or 2 and then are gradually externally rotated to 45°. A 6 to 8-inch (15 to 20-cm) bar has a comfortable width, and the bar should be bent 30° to 40° convex plantarward to increase the valgus force on the foot with each kick. In older children, a bedclothes elevator can be used to stop the brace from getting tangled in the bedclothes. Although the Ponseti method for the correction of talipes equinovarus has been with us for >50 years, we have been slow learners because it has been a positive triumph of technique over reason. One has had to see it, experience it, and read follow-ups such as this one to appreciate the efficacy of the Ponseti method. Has the Ponseti method for clubfoot treatment stood the test of time? Yes, at least up to the 5-year follow-up. We are now awaiting the 10-year results and the results from patients who have attained skeletal maturity for the final answer to this question. We have more yet to learn from follow-ups such as this one!

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,214
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,425

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgeryMême sujetFoot and Ankle SurgeryTravaux en français237 207