MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlex
Ron El‐Hawary, Lori A. Karol, Kelly A. Jeans, B. Stephens Richards

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubfootMedicineGaitSagittal planeGait analysisAnklePonseti methodCadencePhysical therapySurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it