Dynamic Supination in Congenital Clubfoot: A Modified Delphi Panel Approach to Standardizing Definitions and Indications for Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic supination is a well-recognized cause of congenital clubfoot deformity relapse. However, there is no consensus on how to diagnose it and there are varied approaches in its management. This study aims to define dynamic supination and indications for treatment by presenting consensus from an international panel of experts using a modified Delphi panel approach. METHODS: An international panel of 15 pediatric orthopaedic surgeons with clinical and research expertise in childhood foot disorders participated in a modified Delphi panel on dynamic supination in congenital clubfoot. Panelists voted on 51 statements using a 4-point Likert scale on dynamic supination, clinical indications for treatment, operative techniques, and postoperative casting and bracing. All panelists participated in 2 voting rounds with an interim meeting for discussion. Responses were classified as unanimous consensus (100%), consensus (80% or above), near-consensus (70% to 79%), and indeterminate (69% or less). RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for 34 of 51 statements. Panelists agreed dynamic supination is present when the forefoot is supinated during swing phase of gait with initial contact on the lateral border of the foot. There was also agreement that dynamic supination results from muscle imbalance between the tibialis anterior and the peroneus longus and brevis. There was no consensus on observation of hindfoot varus in dynamic supination, operative indications for posterior release of the ankle joint, or incisional approach for tibialis anterior tendon transfer. Reference to the calcaneopedal unit concept, planes of movement, and phases of gait were deemed important factors for consideration when evaluating dynamic supination. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus statements from the Delphi panel can guide diagnosis and treatment of dynamic supination in clubfoot deformity relapse, including clinical decision making regarding preoperative casting, surgical approach, and postoperative immobilization. Near-consensus and indeterminate statements may be used to direct future areas of investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
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 | 0.281 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".