Background: Currently, the Ponseti method is the gold standard for treatment of clubfeet. For long-term functional evaluation of this method, gait analysis can be performed. Previous studies have assessed gait differences between Ponseti treated clubfeet and healthy controls. Research question/purpose: The aims of this systematic review were to compare the gait kinetics of Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls and to compare the gait kinetics between clubfoot patients treated with the Ponseti method or surgically. Methods: A systematic search was performed in Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Cinahl ebsco, and Google scholar, for studies reporting on gait kinetics in children with clubfeet treated with the Ponseti method. Studies were excluded if they only used EMG or pedobarography. Data were extracted and a risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses and qualitative analyses were performed. Results: Nine studies were included, of which five were included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses showed that ankle plantarflexor moment (95% CI -0.25 to -0.19) and ankle power (95% CI -0.89 to -0.60, were significantly lower in the Ponseti treated clubfeet compared to the healthy controls. No significant difference was found in ankle dorsiflexor and plantarflexor moment, and ankle power between clubfeet treated with surgery compared to the Ponseti method. Significance: Differences in gait kinetics are present when comparing Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls. However, there is no significant difference between surgically and Ponseti treated clubfeet. These results give more insight in the possibilities of improving the gait pattern of patients treated for clubfeet.

, , , ,,
Gait & Posture
Department of Orthopaedics

Tuinsma, A.B.M. (A. B.M.), Vanwanseele, B. (B.), van Oorschot, L. (L.), Kars, H.J.J. (H. J.J.), Grin, L. (L.), Reijman, M., … van der Steen, M.C. (M. C.). (2018). Gait kinetics in children with clubfeet treated surgically or with the Ponseti method: A meta-analysis. Gait & Posture (Vol. 66, pp. 94–100). doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.08.006