ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Ponseti Method of Treatment for Idiopathic and Nonidiopathic Clubfoot: A 4 year follow-up study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study sought to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the Ponseti method in treating idiopathic and non-idiopathic clubfoot, and compared clinical outcomes over a 4-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: A total of 75 children (105 clubfeet) were treated with the Ponseti casting protocol at an institution-based clubfoot clinic. Group I comprised 45 patients (63 clubfeet) with idiopathic clubfoot, while Group II included 30 patients (42 clubfeet) with non-idiopathic clubfoot, including arthrogryposis multiplex congenita, flail myelomeningocele, spina bifida, and various syndromic clubfoot. Demographic characteristics, number of casts, tenotomy rate, recurrence, need for minimally invasive adjunct procedures in recurrent or residual cases, and treatment success were compared. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Pirani score at each follow-up, while brace compliance was based on subjective parent-reported adherence at brace initiation and treatment completion. Results: Group I required significantly fewer casts than Group II (median 5.0 vs. 8.0; P < 0.001), whereas tenotomy rates were comparable (75.5% vs. 73.3%). Multivariable linear regression identified higher initial Pirani score, older age at presentation, rigid non-idiopathic foot type, and recurrent presentation as independent predictors of increased casting requirements. The flail subtype did not differ significantly from idiopathic clubfoot in casting burden. Recurrence was significantly lower in Group I (5/63 [7.9%]) than in Group II (9/42 [21.4%]; P = 0.042). A significant Spearman correlation between initial Pirani score and casting requirement was observed only in the flail subgroup (P = 0.007) of Group II. At final follow-up, treatment success (Pirani score ≤0.5) was achieved in 98.82% of Group I and 95.41% of Group II, P < 0.001. Conclusion: The Ponseti method is an effective and reliable treatment for both idiopathic and non-idiopathic clubfoot. In recurrent cases, timely minimally invasive adjunctive procedures may restore correction and reduce the need for extensive surgical release at later stages.
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.