Improved bracing compliance in children with clubfeet using a dynamic orthosis
- 160 Downloads
Non-compliance with foot abduction bracing in children with clubfeet treated with the Ponseti method is the leading risk factor for deformity recurrence. A dynamic foot abduction orthosis is believed to result in improved compliance, fewer skin complications, and fewer recurrences. A case–control trial was conducted to test this hypothesis.
A prospective cohort of children with idiopathic clubfoot using a dynamic brace was compared to a historical control group treated with a standard orthosis. Compliance, skin complications, recurrence, and the need for surgical soft tissue release were compared between groups at equivalent follow-up.
The dynamic and standard brace groups are equivalent in age at the start of treatment (1.9 vs. 2.9 months), number of affected feet (97 vs. 92), and severity (average of four casts required for correction in each group). Fifty-seven children were followed in each group for an average of 2 years. All were corrected initially with the Ponseti method. Compliance is higher using the dynamic brace (47/57, 81%) compared to the standard brace (21/57, 47%) (P < 0.001). The recurrence rate is lower using the dynamic brace (11/57, 19%) compared to the standard brace (22/57, 39%) (P < 0.02). Skin complications are fewer in the dynamic brace (2/57, 3%) compared to the standard brace (11/57, 19%) (P < 0.008). Most importantly, five children using the standard brace underwent posteromedial release within 2 years of treatment, compared to none in the dynamic brace group.
The dynamic foot abduction brace results in improved compliance, fewer recurrences, fewer skin complications, and reduced rates of surgery in idiopathic clubfoot than the traditional brace after non-operative correction with the Ponseti method.
The authors wish to acknowledge Matthew B. Dobbs, MD, for the use of his patients as the research material for this study, Melissa Kirchofer for assistance in gathering the clinical records, and Jie Zheng for the statistical analysis.
- 4.Dobbs MB, Rudzki JR, Purcell DB et al (2004) Factors predictive of outcome after use of the Ponseti method for the treatment of idiopathic clubfeet. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:22–27Google Scholar
- 8.Ponseti IV, Smoley EN (1963) Congenital club foot: the results of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 45-A:261–266Google Scholar
- 10.Tindall AJ, Steinlechner CW, Lavy CB et al (2005) Results of manipulation of idiopathic clubfoot deformity in Malawi by orthopaedic clinical officers using the Ponseti method: a realistic alternative for the developing world? J Pediatr Orthop 25:627–629. doi: 10.1097/01.bpo.0000164876.97949.6bCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cooper DM, Dietz FR (1995) Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot. A thirty-year follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1477–1489Google Scholar
- 12.Laaveg SJ, Ponseti IV (1980) Long-term results of treatment of congenital club foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:23–31Google Scholar
- 13.Ponseti IV (1996) Congenital clubfoot: fundamentals of treatment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 17.Atar D, Lehman WB, Grant AD (1991) Complications in clubfoot surgery. Orthop Rev 20:233–239Google Scholar
- 18.Crawford AH, Gupta AK (1996) Clubfoot controversies: complications and causes for failure. Instr Course Lect 45:339–346Google Scholar
- 20.Hutchins PM, Foster BK, Paterson DC et al (1985) Long-term results of early surgical release in club feet. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67:791–799Google Scholar
- 21.Ippolito E, Farsetti P, Caterini R et al (2003) Long-term comparative results in patients with congenital clubfoot treated with two different protocols. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:1286–1294Google Scholar