Comparison of outcome of Ponseti method with traditional clubfoot treatment in children up to five years of age at tertiary care hospital
Objectives: To compare the outcomes of Ponseti treatment with the traditional treatment method for clubfoot.
Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted at the orthopedic department of Nishtar Medical Hospital & University Multan for one year. The study included 40 children (29 clubfeet) treated with conventional treatment (pre-Ponseti group) who were compared with 55 Ponseti-treated children (72 clubfeet) (Ponseti group). All children were aged under five years. The traditional treatment involved casting and surgery (if required). All the participants were evaluated by a single orthopedic surgeon. The questionnaire was administered to the parents to collect relevant data. X-ray studies were conducted of all feet and patients’ records were checked for surgical history.
Results: Children in the pre-Ponseti group had a significantly higher number of surgeries (54) than those in Ponseti group eight. According to the reports of the parents, children in Ponseti group had significantly better motion in the ankle, lesser pain, and higher satisfaction (p<0.05.whereas, the pre-Ponseti group had a higher incidence of moderate or severe talar flattening rate (p=0.01).
Conclusion: Ponseti treatment is better than earlier treatment in terms of lesser need of surgeries, higher flexibility of ankle or foot, and lower presence of X-ray guided talar flattening.
How to cite this:
Yaqeen A, Sidra H, Ijaz MA, Ijaz MM. Comparison of outcome of Ponseti method with traditional clubfoot treatment in children up to five years of age at tertiary care hospital. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(6):1680-1685. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.6.5519
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.