ArticleDer Orthopade2013
[Clubfoot treatment through the ages: the Ponseti method in comparison to other conservative approaches and operative procedures].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kite versus Ponseti Method in the Treatment of 235 Feet With Idiopathic Clubfoot: Results of a Single Romanian Medical Center.Medicine · 2015Observational
- Relapsing and residual clubfoot deformities after the application of the ponseti method: a contemporary review.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clubfoot is one of the most common congenital deformities of the musculoskeletal system with incidence rates ranging from 0.6 to 6.8 per 1,000 live births. The treatment of clubfoot historically belongs to one of the oldest orthopedic therapies. By the end of the nineteenth century redressement with various tools, such as clamps, braces and casts was the standard treatment of clubfoot. Through further development of operational capabilities and the fact that soft tissue structures show amore resistant reaction to pressure and strain than the surrounding cartilage and bone, operative therapy was favored in the late twentieth century. Surgical correction involves the release of contracted capsular and ligamentous structures to varying degrees and the lengthening of tendons.In 1963 Ponseti published his method. He recognized that the internal rotation and plantar flexion of the calcaneus is the key deformity. However, his method first became known worldwide at the turn of the millennium as long-term results of release operations showed stiff scar healing and the risk of over-correction as problems in these operations.Many comparative studies have shown the superiority of the Ponseti method regarding invasiveness, primary correction rate, functional outcome and recurrence rate in both idiopathic and non-idiopathic clubfoot. In this article the current literature regarding this will be presented as well as prominent landmarks in the development of clubfoot treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.