Management of Clubfoot: Difference between revisions
Evan Thomas (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Evan Thomas (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Clubfoot has been managed over the years both conservatively and surgically. | Clubfoot has been managed over the years both conservatively and surgically. | ||
== Conservative | == Conservative Methods == | ||
Of the all the nonsurgical treatment options that are currently available, | Of the all the nonsurgical treatment options that are currently available, one technique that has been shown to be safer and more efficient than surgery for the treatment of clubfoot is Ponseti's Method. It is now considered as being the gold standard for the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot and has been approved in numerous countries. Other conservative methods, such as Kite’s Method and the French Method, also exist and are still applied in many clinical settings.<ref name=":0">He JP, Shao JF, Hao Y. Comparison of different conservative treatments for idiopathic clubfoot: Ponseti's versus non-Ponseti's methods. J Int Med Res, 2017; 45(3): 1190-1199.</ref> | ||
A recent meta-analysis of nine eligible studies concluded that Ponseti’s Method | |||
This present meta-analysis showed that Ponseti’s method avoided major surgery in an average of 84.9% patients | A recent meta-analysis of nine eligible studies concluded that Ponseti’s Method decreases the number of surgical interventions required as compared to other “non-Ponseti” methods. Analysis of the pooled odds ratios demonstrated a significantly higher rate of poor-to-fair results, relapses, and requirement for major surgery when using Kite’s method as opposed to Ponseti’s, but no significant difference was detected comparing Ponseti’s to the French method.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
This present meta-analysis showed that Ponseti’s method avoided major surgery among various institutions in an average of 84.9% patients, succeeded in an average of 75.6% patients, and achieved a good-to-excellent functional prognosis in an average of 91.1% patients.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
Revision as of 07:45, 17 July 2017
Introduction[edit | edit source]
Clubfoot has been managed over the years both conservatively and surgically.
Conservative Methods[edit | edit source]
Of the all the nonsurgical treatment options that are currently available, one technique that has been shown to be safer and more efficient than surgery for the treatment of clubfoot is Ponseti's Method. It is now considered as being the gold standard for the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot and has been approved in numerous countries. Other conservative methods, such as Kite’s Method and the French Method, also exist and are still applied in many clinical settings.[1]
A recent meta-analysis of nine eligible studies concluded that Ponseti’s Method decreases the number of surgical interventions required as compared to other “non-Ponseti” methods. Analysis of the pooled odds ratios demonstrated a significantly higher rate of poor-to-fair results, relapses, and requirement for major surgery when using Kite’s method as opposed to Ponseti’s, but no significant difference was detected comparing Ponseti’s to the French method.[1]
This present meta-analysis showed that Ponseti’s method avoided major surgery among various institutions in an average of 84.9% patients, succeeded in an average of 75.6% patients, and achieved a good-to-excellent functional prognosis in an average of 91.1% patients.[1]
