Accelerated Ponseti technique: efficacy in the management of CTEV
- 8 Downloads
The current standard practice of treatment for congenital talipes equinus varus (CTEV) is the Ponseti method of manipulation and casting which requires great compliance by caregivers for casting as well as bracing. There is inconclusive evidence regarding optimal cast change interval. This was a prospective non-randomized study conducted at a tertiary care hospital in South India over a 2-year period with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The patients were divided into 2 groups, one with cast change interval of 7 days and the other group at 3 days. Children with CTEV with age less than 1 year with no previous intervention were included in the study. Functional score devised by Ponseti was determined at final follow-up. The average number of casts in standard and accelerated group was 5.23 ± 0.59 and 4.72 ± 0.61 (p < 0.01). The average number of days required for correction of feet was 54.38 ± 8.01 and 33.88 ± 9.03 (p < 0.01) respectively, for standard and accelerated groups. The Pirani score showed a faster reduction in the accelerated group. This study is the longest prospective study published yet in literature, comparing standard and accelerated Ponseti protocols. Complication rate noted in our study was comparable to study by Morcuende but higher than other studies comparing the techniques. It increases compliance as well as reducing treatment and travel costs for parents, more so in developing countries. At 5-year follow-up, there is no significant difference in the functional outcome.
KeywordsCongenital talipes equinovarus Standard Ponseti Accelerated Ponseti
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 1.Tachdijan M (1980) Paediatric orthopaedics, 2nd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, p 2428Google Scholar
- 13.Gilani SF, Ahmed S, Obaid-Ur-Rehman Bashir MA (2014) Comparison of accelerated VS standard Ponseti method in management of idiopathic clubfoot. J Pak Orthop Assoc 26(1):7–10Google Scholar