Ponseti Method in the Management of Syndromic and Arthrogrypotic Clubfoot: Outcome of Treatment in Iraqi Patients

Al-Hilli, Ali Bakir

doi:10.52573/ipmj.2020.169727

Journals List

Ponseti Method in the Management of Syndromic and Arthrogrypotic Clubfoot: Outcome of Treatment in Iraqi Patients

Iraqi Postgraduate Medical Journal

Article 7, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2021 PDF (271.72 K)

Document Type: Research Paper

DOI: 10.52573/ipmj.2020.169727

Author

Ali Bakir Al-Hilli^*

Assistant Professor/ Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, College of Medicine / University of Baghdad

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Clubfoot is one of the most common congenital birth defects, most occuras an isolated birth defect and are considered idiopathic. The Ponseti method of serial casting has gained widespread popularity in recent years for the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot.Non-idiopathic clubfeet are thought to be too rigid to correct by casting alone, it is often treated primarily with surgical extensiveSoft tissuereleases, and the use of Ponseti method for the treatment of non-idiopathic clubfoot has not been extensively reported.
AIM OF THE STUDY:
To study the effectiveness of Ponseti method to achieve correction in non-idiopathic clubfoot, and to follow the patient for relapses.
PATIENTS AND METHOD:
During the period from February 2013 to December 2017, 16 infants with clubfeet associated with other congenital deformities were managed by Ponseti method, and followed for a minimum of 10 months and maximum of 60 months (mean ± SD= 32.94±17.39 ). All patients were treated at medical city center in Baghdad/Iraq.
RESULTS:
16 patients with syndromic clubfoot, 9 of them diagnosed as arthrogryposis and the rest as other syndromic types. 12 of them were males(75.0%) and 4 of them were females (25.0%). 14 of cases had bilateral deformities (87.5%) and 2 unilateral deformities (12.5%).5 patients required 4- 5 casts to achieve initial correction (31.2%) and 11 patients required 6-8 (68.8%).In arthrogryposis only 55.6% of cases required 5 and more casting, while in other syndromic cases 85.7% of cases required 5 and more casting. All patients required additional minor surgical procedures. Initial Pirani score of pre casting to the right and left was (mean±SD) 4.83±0.81 and 5.03±0.85 respectively, Pirani score after removal of final cast(pre surgery) to the right and left was (mean±SD) 1.03±0.74 and 1.3±0.7 respectively (p –value ˂ 0.001).Follow-up for minimum 10 months and maximum 60 months (mean±SD/ 32.94±17.39) .Half of our patients got plantigrade, pain free, and flexible foot at last follow up with no relapse, another half of patients developed relapse at subsequent follow up. Most relapses occurred in arthrogryposis cases (66.7%),while in other syndromic cases relapses occurred in (28.6%).Two of relapsing cases(25%) treated by repeated casting, another two cases(25%) treated by repeated casting and heel cord release, and four cases (50%) treated by salvage procedure (talectomy) after failed repeated casting due to rigid and stiff feet.
CONCLUSION:
The Ponseti method is effective treatment for syndromic clubfootto achieve flexible, pain free and plantigrade foot and to minimize the extensive future surgeries.

Keywords

Syndromic Clubfoot; Ponseti method; Outcome of treatment

References

1. Solomon L, Warwick D, Nayagam S. Apley's system of orthopaedics and fractures: CRC press; 2010. 614-17 .

2. Dobbs MB, Rudzki J, Purcell DB, Walton T, Porter KR, Gurnett CA. Factors predictive of outcome after use of the Ponseti method for the treatment of idiopathic clubfeet. JBJS. 2004;86:22-7.

3. Herzenberg JE, Radler C, Bor N. Ponseti versus traditional methods of casting for idiopathic clubfoot. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 2002;22:517-21.

4. Haft GF, Walker CG, Crawford HA. Early clubfoot recurrence after use of the Ponseti method in a New Zealand population. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME-. 2007;89:487.

5. Laaveg S, Ponseti IV. Long-term results of treatment of congenital club foot. JBJS. 1980;62:23-31.

6. Cooper DM, Dietz FR. Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot. A thirty-year follow-up note. JBJS. 1995;77:1477-89.

7. Hennigan SP, Kuo KN. Resistant talipes equinovarus associated with congenital constriction band syndrome. J. of Pediatr. Orthop., 2000 ;20:240-5.

8. Guidera KJ, Drennan JC. Foot and ankle deformities in arthrogryposis multiplex congenita. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1985;194:93-8.

9. Bevan WP, Hall JG, Bamshad M, Staheli LT, Jaffe KM, Song K. Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita (amyoplasia): an orthopaedic perspective. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 2007;27:594-600.

10. Elmslie R. The principles of treatment of congenital talipes equino-varus. JBJS. 1998;2:669-86.

11. Drummond DS, Cruess RL. The management of the foot and ankle in arthrogryposis multiplex congenita. Bone & Joint Journal. 1978;60:96-9.

12. Boehm S, Limpaphayom N, Alaee F, Sinclair MF, Dobbs MB. Early results of the Ponseti method for the treatment of clubfoot in distal arthrogryposis. JBJS. 2008;90:1501-7.

13. Kowalczyk B, Lejman T. Short-term experience with Ponseti casting and the Achilles tenotomy method for clubfeet treatment in arthrogryposis multiplex congenita. Journal of children's orthopaedics. 2008;2:365-71.

14. Morcuende JA, Dobbs MB, Frick SL. Results of the Ponseti method in patients with clubfoot associated with arthrogryposis. The Iowa orthopaedic journal. 2008;28:22.

15. Kelly DM. Campbell’s operative orthopedics. 13th ed. Philadelphia. PA: Elsevier; 2017. 1032-36 .

16. Miron M-C, Grimard G. Ultrasound evaluation of foot deformities in infants. Pediatric radiology. 2016;46:193-209.

17. Aronson J, Puskarich CL. Deformity and disability from treated clubfoot. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 1990;10:109-19.

18. Hecht JT, Ester A, Scott A, Wise CA, Iovannisci DM, Lammer EJ, et al. NAT2 variation and idiopathic talipes equinovarus (clubfoot). American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 2007;143:2285-91.

19. Sommer A, Blanton SH, Weymouth K, Alvarez C, Richards BS, Barnes D, et al. Smoking, the xenobiotic pathway, and clubfoot. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology. 2011;91:20-8.

20. Ester AR, Weymouth KS, Burt A, Wise CA, Scott A, Gurnett CA, et al. Altered transmission of HOX and apoptotic SNPs identify a potential common pathway for clubfoot. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 2009;149:2745-52.

21. Elmslie R. The principles of treatment of congenital talipes equino-varus. JBJS. 1920;2:669-86.

22. Fisher RL, Shaffer SR. An evaluation of calcaneal osteotomy in congenital clubfoot and other disorders. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1970;70:141-7.

23. Ponseti I. Congenital clubfoot: fundamentals of management. Oxford Univ. Press; 1996.

24. Mehrafshan M, Rampal V, Seringe R, Wicart P. Recurrent club-foot deformity following previous soft-tissue release. Bone & Joint Journal. 2009;91:949-54.

25. Chotel F, Parot R, Seringe R, Berard J, Wicart P. Comparative study: Ponseti method versus French physiotherapy for initial treatment of idiopathic clubfoot deformity. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 2011;31:320-5.

26. Morcuende JA, Dolan LA, Dietz FR, Ponseti IV. Radical reduction in the rate of extensive corrective surgery for clubfoot using the Ponseti method. Pediatrics. 2004;113:376-80.

27. van Bosse HJ, Marangoz S, Lehman WB, Sala DA. Correction of arthrogrypotic clubfoot with a modified Ponseti technique. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2009;467:1283-93.

28. Matar HE, Beirne P, Garg N. The effectiveness of the Ponseti method for treating clubfoot associated with arthrogryposis: up to 8 years follow-up. Journal of children's orthopaedics. 2016;10:15-8.

1. Solomon L, Warwick D, Nayagam S. Apley's system of orthopaedics and fractures: CRC press; 2010. 614-17 .

253

Dobbs MB, Rudzki J, Purcell DB, Walton T, Porter KR, Gurnett CA. Factors predictive of outcome after use of the Ponseti method for the treatment of idiopathic clubfeet. JBJS. 2004;86:22-7.

3. Herzenberg JE, Radler C, Bor N. Ponseti versus traditional methods of casting for idiopathic clubfoot. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 2002;22:517-21.

4. Haft GF, Walker CG, Crawford HA. Early clubfoot recurrence after use of the Ponseti method in a New Zealand population. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME-. 2007;89:487.

5. Laaveg S, Ponseti IV. Long-term results of treatment of congenital club foot. JBJS. 1980;62:23-31.

6. Cooper DM, Dietz FR. Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot. A thirty-year follow-up note. JBJS. 1995;77:1477-89.

7. Hennigan SP, Kuo KN. Resistant talipes equinovarus associated with congenital constriction band syndrome. J. of Pediatr. Orthop., 2000 ;20:240-5.

Statistics

Article View: 274

PDF Download: 200