Treatment for Clubfoot: Stockinette Versus Webril Cast Padding in the Ponseti Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ponseti method of serial manipulation and casting revolutionized the treatment of one of the most common congenital orthopaedic conditions-clubfoot-resulting in less surgical morbidity and better functional results. Several studies have examined aspects of nonoperative treatment but none have explored the effect of different types of undercast padding. METHODS: The authors performed a randomized controlled trial comparing cotton Stockinette and Webril undercast padding using the Ponseti method. They included 56 patients under the age of 6 months who had an untreated idiopathic clubfoot. For treatment, the padding was randomized to double-layer Stockinette (29 patients) or standard 2- to 3-layer Webril (27 patients). The primary analysis consisted of a 2-sample t test comparing the mean number of casts required for correction in each group. Secondary outcomes included initial and final standardized clubfoot scores (Pirani and Dimeglio scores) and adverse events. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were not statistically different between groups, with respect to mean age, sex, and side being treated, nor were the baseline Dimeglio and Pirani scores. The primary outcome analysis revealed an equivalent number of casts (about 4) required before tenotomy. The secondary analysis on complications did not show any significant difference, with 10 events documented in the Webril group and 9 in the Stockinette group (P=1.00). At the end of the study, the mean Dimeglio (3.9±2.1 vs. 3.9±1.8, P=0.99) and Pirani (2.1±0.8 vs. 2.2±0.8, P=0.70) scores were not significantly different. Subjectively, parents and doctors indicated a substantially more positive experience for the Stockinette group. CONCLUSIONS: Webril and Stockinette paddings provide equivalent clubfoot deformity correction while applying a similar number of casts before tenotomy. Although minor skin complications were observed, these were not significantly different between groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".