Comparison of Functional and Radiological Outcome of Children Aged 5-10 years with Clubfoot Treated Previously Either by Ponseti Method or Surgical Release – A Minimum 4-year Follow-up (Case Series of 28 Children as Cross-sectional Study)

Volume 7 | Issue 1 | Jan – April 2019 | Page: 9-15 | M Ajith Kumar, Shah Jay Rajesh.

Authors: M Ajith Kumar [1], Shah Jay Rajesh[1].

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Tejasvini Hospital and SSIOT, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Shah Jay Rajesh,
Tejasvini Hospital and SSIOT,
Kadri Road, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.


Aim: This study aims to compare the functional outcome in children aged 5-10 years with clubfoot previously treated by either Ponseti or posteromedial soft tissue release (PMSTR) with minimum follow-up of 4 years following final casting.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) To compare the functional outcome between the two methods, (2) to determine whether correlation exists between functional outcome and radiographic measurements of both groups, and (3) to compare results with the literature.

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in Tejasvini Hospital and SSIOT. Medical records of clubfoot patients operated between January 2008 and December 2011 were reviewed. Communication was sent to them and scheduling of appointments for the assessment was made. 28 patients with 45 feet who met the inclusion criteria were assessed. Objective evaluation was made using standard standing AP/lateral foot radiographs and subjective evaluation was made using LaavegPonseti 100-point scoring system includes subjective and objective questionnaire and tabulated. The observation was subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: (1) Of 45 foots, Laaveg-Ponseti score showed excellent in 18 feet, good in 16 feet, moderate in 4 feet, and poor in 7 feet, (2) patient managed with Ponseti has higher excellent/good outcome as compared to PMSTR (90.5% and 62.5%, respectively) but not to the point of statistically significant with P = 0.152, (3) lower talo-1st metatarsal lateral (TMT-LT) (P = 0.004), lower TMT anteroposterior (AP) (P = 0.001), lower calcaneum-5th metatarsal AP (P = 0.005), and high talocalcaneal angle in lateral (P = 0.015) angles are correlated with excellent/good functional outcome with statistically significant P < 0.05, and (4) there were no other significant correlations between the functional and radiographic outcomes.

Conclusion: (1) Our study supports the routine use of radiography during follow-up and using wide range of parameters instead of anyone radiologic parameter, (2) serial manipulation and casting are the preferred initial treatment of choice for idiopathic clubfeet, and soft tissue release is reserved for clubfeet that cannot be completely corrected as it will lead to stiff painful foot and low functional outcome. A strict brace compliance remains the major challenge of the Ponseti method.

Key words: Forefoot adduction on weight-bearing, Calcaneal varus on weight-bearing, Anteroposterior, Lateral, Left, Right, Female, Male, Talus-1st metatarsal angle (LATERAL), 1st–-5th metatarsal angle (LATERAL), Talus-1st metatarsal angle (anteroposterior), Calcaneus-5th metatarsal angle (anteroposterior), Talocalcaneal angle (anteroposterior), Talocalcaneal angle (LATERAL), Congenital talipes equinovarus (clubfoot).


1. Phillips D. Incidence, Prevalence and Challenges of Managing CTEV in the Top End. 13th National Rural Health Conference.

2. Laaveg SJ, Ponseti IV. Long-term results of treatment of congenital club foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:23-31.

3. Simons GW. A standardized method for the radiographic evaluation of clubfeet. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978;135:10718.

4. Cooper DM, Dietz FR. Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot. A thirtyyear follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:1477-89.

5. Ippolito E, Farsetti P, Caterini R, Tudisco C. Long-term comparative results in patients with congenital clubfoot treated with two different protocols. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85A:1286-94.

6. Dobbs MB, Gurnett CA. Update on clubfoot: Etiology and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:1146-53.

7. Fridman MW, de Almeida Fialho HS. The role of radiographic measurements in the evaluation of congenital clubfoot surgical results. Skeletal Radiol 2007;36:129-38.

8. Singh BI, Vaishnavi AJ. Modified turco procedure for treatment of idiopathic clubfoot. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;438:209-14.

9. Prasad P, Sen RK, Gill SS, Wardak E, Saini R. Clinicoradiological assessment and their correlation in clubfeet treated with postero-medial soft-tissue release. Int Orthop 2009;33:225-9.

10. Munshi S, Varghese RA, Joseph B. Evaluation of outcome of treatment of congenital clubfoot. J Pediatr Orthop 2006;26:664-72.

11. Herbsthofer B, Eckardt A, Rompe JD, Küllmer K. Significance of radiographic angle measurements in evaluation of congenital clubfoot. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1998;117:3249.

12. Abulsaad M, Abdelgaber N. Correlation between clinical outcome of surgically treated clubfeet and different radiological parameters. Acta Orthop Belg 2008;74:489-95.

How to Cite this article: Ajith M, Shah J R. Comparison of Functional and Radiological Outcome of Children Aged 5-10 years with Clubfoot Treated Previously Either by Ponseti Method or Surgical Release – A Minimum 4-year Follow-up (Case Series of 28 Children as Cross-sectional Study). . J Kar Orth Assoc. Jan-April 2019; 7(1): 9-15.

                                          (Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *