The Use of Botulinum Type A Toxin in the Treatment of Idiopathic Clubfoot: 5-year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continued monitoring and reporting of outcomes in clubfoot patients are important for providing an indicator of functional outcomes and surveillance and treatment for problems or recurrences. The purpose of this study is to report the 5-year outcomes of the updated cohort of 44 patients with 65 idiopathic clubfeet treated with manipulation, casting, and Botulinum toxin A (BTX-A). METHODS: As part of the original study, the patients underwent the corrective treatment phase of manipulation and casting followed with BTX-A injection and then the maintenance phase of bracing. The patients were seen at regular intervals and a detailed clinical history was maintained for each patient including ankle range of motion, recurrences, and interventions for recurrences. RESULTS: Mean values for range of motion at the 5-year visit were 22.3 and 17.1 degrees for dorsiflexion with the knee in flexion and extension, respectively. Overall, 48% (31 of 65 clubfeet) successfully responded to a single BTX-A injection and experienced no recurrence over the follow-up period. At least 1 repeat BTX-A injection was required in 34 clubfeet, for an overall recurrence rate of 52%. Surgery was required in 10 clubfeet, and the overall surgical rate was 15.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Idiopathic clubfeet treated with BTX-A continued to show good outcomes at 2 to 5-year follow-up. The experience with this cohort provides support for the effectiveness of BTX-A in the initial correction and continued management of idiopathic clubfoot. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Levels III to IV. This is a prospective, nonexperimental clinical study investigating efficacy of an innovative treatment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".