| Literature DB >> 22328828 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An intoed gait pattern is one of the most common referrals for children to an orthopedic consultation. Parental concern as to the aesthetics of the child's gait pattern and/or its symptomatic nature will primarily drive these referrals during a child's early developmental years. Whilst some of these referrals prove to be the result of a normal growth variant, some children will present with a symptomatic intoed gait pattern. Various treatments, both conservative and surgical, have been proposed including: braces, wedges, stretches and exercises, shoe modifications, and surgical procedures. However, which treatments are effective and justified in the management of this condition is not clear within the literature. The aim of this systematic review was to therefore identify and critique the best available evidence for the non-surgical management of an intoed gait pattern in a pediatric population.Entities:
Keywords: in-toeing; intoeing; toe-in; toeing in
Year: 2012 PMID: 22328828 PMCID: PMC3273377 DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S28669
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc ISSN: 1178-2390
Figure 1Literature selection flow chart.
Summary of study characteristics
| Authors | Type of study | Intervention | Population recruited | Age range (mean ± SD) | n females: n males | n subjects | n final | Outcome measures utilized | FPA method | Validity and reliability of the outcome measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lanier | IV | Flexible leather counter splint | Inclusion: Pediatric population with a clinical diagnosis of an intoed gait (no details as to the clinical measurements used) | <1 year–6 years | NR | 142 | 123 | NR | NR | NR |
| Knittle and Staheli | IV | Shoe modifications | Inclusion: Pediatric population with a bilateral intoed gait | (6.2 ± 2.5) | 6:4 | 10 | 10 |
Visual FPA (video) | AOG measured from a line of progression with |
No validity or reliability results detailed within the report or within the literature for this method of FPA |
| Redmond | IV | Gait plates | Inclusion: Pediatric population with an intoed gait. | 18 months–47 months | 12:6 | 20 (40 limbs) | 18 (36 limbs) |
| AOG measured from a line of progression with |
No validity or reliability results detailed within the report or within the literature for |
| Redmond | IV | Gait plates | Inclusion: Pediatric population with an intoed gait. | 18 months–47 months | 12:6 | 20 | 18 |
Two Questionnaires | AOG measured from a line of progression with |
No validity or reliability results reported within the report or within the literature for Validity and reliability reported as good within the report. Piloting and testing conducted several times by the author |
| Munuera et al | IV | Orthotic device (with gait plate extension) | Inclusion: Pediatric population with an intoed gait. | (6.88 ± 3.25) | 26:22 | 48 (96 feet) | 48 (96 feet) |
| AOG measured from a line of progression |
Reliability results published by Milliron and colleagues (1992) No validity or reliability results reported within the report or within the literature for |
Abbreviations: IV; level 4 case series with either post-test or pre-test/post-test outcomes33; NR, not reported; Dx, diagnosis; HJ, hip joint; KJ, knee joint; FPA, foot progression angle; AOG, angle of gait; SD, standard deviation.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort critical appraisal tool
| Question | Lanier | Knittle and Staheli | Redmond | Redmond | Munuera |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – Did the study address a clearly focused question? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 – Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 – W as the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? | Yes | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4 – W as the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| 5 – W as the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| 6a – Have the authors identified all important confounding factors? | No | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | No | No |
| 6b – Have they taken into account the confounding factors in the design and/or analysis? | No | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | No | No |
| 7a – W as the follow-up of subjects complete enough? | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7b – W as the follow-up of subjects long enough? | No | No | No | No | No |
| 10 – Do you believe the results? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 11 – Can the results be applied to the local population? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12 – Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Note: Questions 8 and 9 were both open questions related to the results of the studies. The results for these questions are reported within Table 3.
Results of the interventions
| Author(s) | Points of measurement | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Lanier | NR | 73% showed improvement. |
| Knittle and Staheli | FPA taken in 10 different conditions: | Shoe wedges have no immediate clinically significant effect on AOG of children. |
| Redmond |
FPA without gait plate in shoe FPA with gait plate in shoe | Statistically significant improvement of 6° of FPA with gait plates in situ. |
| Redmond |
Questionnaire 1 administered pre-intervention Questionnaire 2 administered 1 month post intervention | Trends identified:
A reduction in the rate of tripping Positive parental satisfaction with the treatment NNT: Tripping more than once daily = 1.8 FPA more than 2 SDs from population mean = 3.0 |
| Munuera |
FPA barefoot (unshod) (AG1) FPA shod (physiologic/standardized shoewear) (AG2) FPA shod + orthotic device (AG3) | A significant FPA improvement from barefoot to shod (AG1–AG2), with an even greater FPA improvement in shod + orthoses condition (AG1–AG3). |
Abbreviations: NR, not reported; FPA, foot progression angle; AOG, angle of gait; NNT, numbers needed to treat; SD, standard deviation.
Body of evidence matrix
| Component | Grade | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence base | D – Poor |
Five studies Study design: IV (Level 4) – Case series with either post-test or pre-test/post-test outcomes (n = 5) Increased risk of bias due to poor methodological quality of studies Use of outcome measures with demonstrable psychometric properties Only one study calculated sample size estimate |
| Consistency | C – Satisfactory |
All five studies level IV studies Three of the five studies use the same outcome measure Three of the five studies report similar results |
| Clinical impact | D – Poor |
Only one study provided long term follow-up of treatment outcome (1 month post-base line) Small patient population (n = 217) |
| Generalizability | C – Satisfactory |
Only five studies of questionable quality Age range <1 year–6.8 years. One study provided mean and standard deviation ranges and one study the mean and SD could be calculated based on available data Higher percentage of female participants in the overall sample included in this review |
| Grade of recommendation | D – Caution |
Five, low level (case series), low quality (increased risk of bias due to poor methodological quality of studies) evidence base While some of the findings were consistent there were issues with small sample size, lack of use of psychometrically sound outcome measures, and no long term follow-up, which are important methodological flaws |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.