ArticleInternational orthopaedics2016
Evolution of clubfoot deformity and muscle abnormality in the Ponseti method: evaluation with the Dimeglio score.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Characteristics and Whole Exome Sequencing Analysis in Serbian Cases of Clubfoot Deformity-Single Center Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- From Codivilla to Ponseti: historical narrative review on clubfoot treatment in Italy.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- Interobserver reliability of Diméglio and Pirani score and their subcomponents in the evaluation of idiopathic clubfoot in a clinical setting: a need for improved scoring systems.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Comparison of Dimeglio and Pirani score in predicting number of casts and need for tenotomy in clubfoot correction using the Ponseti method.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- The impact of different types of talus deformation after treatment of clubfeet.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe modality of progression of the correction along casting sessions of Ponseti method has been poorly investigated and information regarding evolution of muscular abnormalities is missing. The aim of the study was to investigate dynamics of correction of the different components of clubfoot deformity in a clinical setting.
methodsIn a prospective study, 124 clubfeet consecutively treated by a single orthopaedic surgeon were evaluated with the Dimeglio system at each casting session and score progression was determined.
resultsFor each component a typical pattern was recorded. Cavus and medial crease showed a rapid correction. Rotation, adduction and varus corrected gradually and simultaneously. The posterior crease usually persisted until final cast was discontinued. Equinus improved progressively after each cast and then to a larger extent with Achilles tenotomy. The parameter describing poor muscular condition, reported at presentation in 39 feet (31.5%), was the only item showing extremely different dynamics of correction (from rapid and complete resolution to persistence at last cast removal), which could be explained by the large diversity of entities included (hypertonia, imbalance, fatty infiltration, fibrosis, aplasia).
conclusionsThis study confirmed that dynamics of correction in clinical setting correspond essentially to theoretical principles of Ponseti method. Muscle abnormalities are not uncommon in clubfeet and have great influence on the progression of correction. If abnormalities are recorded, their evolution along the treatment should be monitored. A more objective evaluation would be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27349648What 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.