A proposed clinical criteria to determine the type of surgical management for Resistant or Relapsed Clubfeet
Objective: To introduce a simple clinical criteria for assessment of residual or relapsed idiopathic club foot and to improve its outcome by appropriate surgical management.
Methods: This descriptive study was conducted in the Department of Pediatric Orthopedic surgery
The Children’s Hospital, Lahore, from June 2014 to June 2018.All patients meeting the inclusion criteria were clinically assessed for dorsolateral hump, midfoot crease, hind foot crease and equinus and were divided into three groups according to the severity and number of these deformities present. Surgery was done according to the pre- decided plan for each group on all club feet. Patients were followed up at 3 months, 6 months and at 1 year after surgery and outcome were evaluated according to the functional rating system for club foot surgery.
Results: We had a total of 35 children with mean age of 21 months (range 6 to 36 months). Male were 24(68.5%) and female were 11(31.4%). Bilateral clubfeet were present in 15(42.8%) and unilateral residual idiopathic club foot in 20(57.1%) making it 50 club feet. A total of 8 (16%) patients had flexible dorsolateral hump only so required posteromedial release procedure while 23 (46%) patients had flexible dorsolateral hump with half midfoot crease with or without hind foot equinus so required posteromedial and abductor planter release. In 19 (38%) feet rigid dorsolateral hump with or without other deformities were present and they underwent posteromedial, lateral and abductor planter release. Outcome was excellent in 26 (52%), good in 19 (38%), fair in 4 (8%) and poor in 1 (2%) of patients.
Conclusion: The choice of surgical procedure according to the properly assessed residual or relapsed deformity by our proposed clinical criteria makes the surgical management precise and gives excellent and good results in residual or relapsed idiopathic club foot.
2. Mathias RG, Lule JK, Waiswa G, Naddumba EK, Pirani S. Incidence of clubfoot in Uganda. Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique. 2010;101(4):341-4.
3. Boo NY, Ong LC. Congenital talipes in Malaysian neonates: incidence, pattern and associated factors. Singapore medical journal. 1990;31(6):539-42.
4. Lochmiller C, Johnston D, Scott A, Risman M, Hecht JT. Genetic epidemiology study of idiopathic talipes equinovarus. American journal of medical genetics. 1998;79(2):90-6.
5. Anand A, Sala DA. Clubfoot: Etiology and treatment. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. 2008;42(1):22-8.
6. Duce S, Madrigal L, Schmidt K, Cunningham C, Liu G, Barker S, et al. Micro-magnetic resonance imaging and embryological analysis of wild-type and pma mutant mice with clubfoot. Journal of anatomy. 2010;216(1):108-20.
7. Duce SL, D'Alessandro M, Du Y, Jagpal B, Gilbert FJ, Crichton L, et al. 3D MRI analysis of the lower legs of treated idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (clubfoot). PloS one. 2013;8(1):e54100.
8. Dietz FR, Ponseti IV, Buckwalter JA. Morphometric study of clubfoot tendon sheaths. Journal of pediatric orthopedics. 1983;3(3):311-8.
9. Roye BD, Hyman J, Roye DP, Jr. Congenital idiopathic talipes equinovarus. Pediatrics in review. 2004;25(4):124-30.
10. Wainwright AM, Auld T, Benson MK, Theologis TN. The classification of congenital talipes equinovarus. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 2002;84(7):1020-4.
11. Zhao D, Li H, Zhao L, Liu J, Wu Z, Jin F. Results of clubfoot management using the Ponseti method: do the details matter? A systematic review. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2014;472(4):1329-36.
12. Willis RB, Al-Hunaishel M, Guerra L, Kontio K. What Proportion of Patients Need Extensive Surgery After Failure of the Ponseti Technique for Clubfoot? Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2009;467(5):1294-7.
13. Westhoff B, Weimann-Stahlschmidt K, Krauspe R. [Treatment of recurrent clubfoot and residual deformities after congenital clubfoot]. Der Orthopade. 2013;42(6):418-26.
14. Haft GF, Walker CG, Crawford HA. Early clubfoot recurrence after use of the Ponseti method in a New Zealand population. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 2007;89(3):487-93.
15. Tschopp O, Rombouts JJ, Rossillon R. Comparison of posteromedial and subtalar release in surgical treatment of resistant clubfoot. Orthopedics. 2002;25(5):527-9; discussion 30.
16. Kaewpornsawan K, Khuntisuk S, Jatunarapit R. Comparison of modified posteromedial release and complete subtalar release in resistant congenital clubfoot: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2007;90(5):936-41.
17. Bensahel H, Csukonyi Z, Desgrippes Y, Chaumien JP. Surgery in residual clubfoot: one-stage medioposterior release "a la carte". Journal of pediatric orthopedics. 1987;7(2):145-8.
18. Atar B, Lehman WB, Grant AD, Strong water AM. Revision surgery in clubfeet. Clin Orthop.1992; 283:223–230.
19. Ponseti IV SE. Congenital club foot: the results of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1963;45(A):261-344.
20. Harrold AJ, Walker CJ. Treatment and prognosis in congenital club foot. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 1983;65(1):8-11.
21. Catterall A. A method of assessment of the clubfoot deformity. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1991(264):48-53.
22. Dimeglio A, Bensahel H, Souchet P, Mazeau P, Bonnet F. Classification of clubfoot. Journal of pediatric orthopedics Part B. 1995;4(2):129-36.
23. Dyer PJ, Davis N. The role of the Pirani scoring system in the management of club foot by the Ponseti method. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 2006;88(8):1082-4.