Suture Button Technique for Tibialis Anterior Tendon Transfer for the Treatment of Residual Clubfoot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ponseti method has revolutionized the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot, but recurrence remains problematic. Dynamic supination is a common cause of recurrence, and the standard treatment is tibialis anterior tendon transfer using an external button. Although safe and effective, the placement of the button on the sole creates a pressure point, which can lead to skin ulceration. In our institution, a suture button has been used for the tibialis anterior tendon transfer and we report our results here. METHODS: Two senior authors' case logs were retrospectively reviewed to identify 23 patients (34 feet) for tibialis anterior tendon transfer using a suture button. Complications and additional operative procedures were assessed by reviewing operative notes, follow-up visit clinic notes, and radiographs. The mean age of the patients was 6 years 2 months (SD 40 months) and the average follow-up duration was 67.1 weeks (SD 72 weeks). RESULTS: There were 5 complications (14.7%). Recurrence occurred bilaterally in 1 patient (5.9%) but did not require reoperation. Other complications included a cast-related pressure sore (2.9%) and an infection (2.9%) requiring irrigation with debridement along with hardware removal. CONCLUSIONS: Tibialis anterior tendon transfer using a suture button was a safe procedure with theoretical advantage of providing stronger fixation and reducing the risk of skin pressure necrosis compared to the standard external button technique. We believe a suture button could allow earlier rehabilitation and may afford stronger ankle eversion. Prospective studies are required to compare the differences in functional outcomes between the procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series, therapeutic study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".