MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411483434 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.25.00064

Split Posterior Tibialis Tendon Transfer and the Recurrence Rate of Equinovarus Deformity in Patients With Cerebral Palsy

2025· review· en· W4411483434 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Daniel Bouchard, Cameron Pow, Mark Polemidiotis, David Slawaska‐Eng, Mousa Alahmari, Waleed Kishta

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral palsyDeformityConfidence intervalSpasticitySurgeryOdds ratioSpastic cerebral palsySubgroup analysisSpasticPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common motor disability of childhood, predominantly characterized by spasticity. A frequent complication of spastic CP is equinovarus deformity, resulting in pain, instability, and altered gait, significantly affecting ambulation. Surgical intervention, particularly the split posterior tibialis tendon transfer (SPOTT), is often required to correct deformity when conservative management fails. However, the variability in outcomes and recurrence rates across different patient subtypes and surgical techniques remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the recurrence rate of equinovarus deformity in children with CP after SPOTT, with a focus on factors such as age, CP subtype, and functional status. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Emcare databases was performed to identify observational studies reporting recurrence rates after SPOTT in pediatric patients with CP (aged ≤18 years). Studies with short follow-up periods (<12 months), non-English articles, conference abstracts, and those involving concomitant bony procedures were excluded. Statistical analyses used random-effects meta-analysis models to calculate pooled recurrence rates. All statistical analyses were performed, and forest plots were generated using R (version 4.3.2). RESULTS: Nine studies (325 patients, 366 feet) met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at surgery was 10.35 years, with a mean follow-up duration of 76.18 months. The overall pooled recurrence rate of equinovarus deformity after SPOTT was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0-17.8), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 71.9%). Subgroup analysis revealed higher failure rates among nonambulatory patients with quadriplegic CP (47.6%) compared with ambulatory hemiplegic patients (6.6%). The optimal age window for SPOTT seemed to be between 6 and 10 years as younger patients demonstrated increased risks of valgus deformity, whereas older patients had higher recurrence rates. Variations in surgical techniques, including interosseous membrane versus circumtibial routing, were identified as potential sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: SPOTT seems to be an effective intervention for correcting equinovarus deformity in ambulatory patients with CP, particularly those with hemiplegia or diplegia. However, nonambulatory and quadriplegic patients are at higher risk of recurrence, warranting careful patient selection. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution because of substantial study heterogeneity and the variability in surgical techniques reported. Further high-quality studies with standardized reporting and direct comparisons between surgical techniques are necessary to optimize outcomes and inform clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV, systematic review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBJS ReviewsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207