Abstract
The objective of our study was to compare both Kite's and Ponseti's methods to evidence
which one is the most efficient technique in the treatment of congenital idiopathic
clubfoot, based on a meta-analysis of current scientific literature. We performed
a search of the past 20 years of literature (1986 to 2006) on MEDLINE, LILACS, and
EMBASE databases for clinical trials that compared both Kite's and Ponseti's methods.
The search in the literature provided 4 selected papers for the meta-analysis. There
was a significant difference between the groups, in which the Ponseti's group was
more effective in treating congenital clubfoot, considering both primary correction
(P = .001) and uncorrected plus relapsed feet (P = .014). In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicates that Ponseti's group in the clubfoot
treatment was superior to Kite's group; however, the available studies have some methodological
limitations such as small sample sizes and historical control.
Level of Clinical Evidence
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to The Journal of Foot and Ankle SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Talipes equinovarus in Western Australia.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003; 17: 187-194
- Genetics and epidemiology of idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus.J Pediatr Orthop. 2003; 23: 265-272
- Non operative treatment of congenital clubfoot.Clin Orthop. 1972; 84: 29-38
- Long-term results of extensive surgical dissection in the treatment of congenital clubfoot.Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2008; 42: 44-52
- Principles involved in the treatment of congenital clubfoot.J Bone Joint Surg. 1939; 21: 595-606
- Current concept review.Treatment of congenital clubfoot. J Bone Joint Surg 74-A(3). 1992; : 448-454
- Early experience with the Ponseti method for the treatment of congenital idiopathic clubfoot.IMAJ. 2005; 7: 307-310
- Long-term results of treatmento of clubfoot.J Bone Joint Surg. 1980; 62-A: 23-31
- Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot—a 30-year follow-up note.J Bone Joint Surg. 1995; 77-A: 1477-1489
- Ponseti's vs. Kite's method in the treatment of clubfoot—a prospective randomised study.Int Orthop. 2008; 32: 409-413
- The Ponseti method of treatment of clubfoot.Curr Opin Pediatr. 2006; 18: 22-28
- Deformities and disabilties from treated clubfoot.J Pediatr Orthop. 1990; 10: 109-119
Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford, U.K. Available at www.cebm.net. Accessed on August 24, 2007.
- Long-term comparative results in patients with congenital clubfoot treated with two different protocols.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 1286-1293
- Ponseti versus traditional methods of casting for idiopatic clubfoot.J Pediatr Orthop. 2002; 22: 517-521
Marino-Zuco C. Trattamento del piede tortocongenito. Roma: Arte Della Stampa; pp 12–27, 1934.
- Common errors in the treatment of congenital clubfoot. Current concepts.Int Orthop. 1997; 21: 137-141
Article info
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Conflict of Interest: None reported.
Identification
Copyright
© 2010 American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
