| Literature DB >> 27833661 |
Angela Margaret Evans1, Mohommad Mamun Hossen Chowdhury2, Mohommad Humayun Kabir3, Md Fashiur Rahman3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital clubfoot deformity can cause significant disability, and if left untreated, may further impoverish those in developing countries, like Bangladesh. The Ponseti method has been strategically introduced in Bangladesh by a non-government organisation, Walk For Life (WFL). WFL has provided free treatment for over 17,500 Bangladeshi children with clubfeet since 2009, sustained by local ownership, and international support. This study assesses the 4-year results in children for whom treatment began before the age of 3 years.Entities:
Keywords: Banglaesh; Clubfoot; Outcomes; Ponseti; Relapse
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27833661 PMCID: PMC5103456 DOI: 10.1186/s13047-016-0175-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Foot Ankle Res ISSN: 1757-1146 Impact factor: 2.303
Relapse assessment protocol (after Bhaskar) [14]
| LEFT | RIGHT | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1A/2A | 1A/2A | Reduced ankle dorsiflexion: <15 to 0 (1A) |
| 1B/2B | 1B/2B | Gait supinated, dynamic forefoot adduction/supination – flexible relapse (1B) |
| 3 | 3 | Two or more fixed deformities* |
Relapse assessment was performed in two steps
1. Examine ankle range, with knee extended
2. Watch gait for supination
*Fixed ankle equinus and adduction and cavus (partial relapse)
*Heel varus and ankle equinus, midfoot cavus, forefoot adduction (total relapse)
The Bangla clubfoot tool combined three domains of parent satisfaction, gait, and clinical examination (total score from 11 points, then rated as a percentage)
| A. Parental rating | Yes | Don’t know | No | Mean scores (%) | ‘Rating’ |
| 1. Happy with child’s feet? | 96 | 3 | 0 | 97 | |
| 2. Recommend to others? | 94 | 5 | 0 | 95 | |
| 3. Does child play with others? | 97 | 2 | 0 | 98 | |
| 4. Does child wear shoes of choice? | 55 | 33 | 11 | 44 | ~ |
| 5. Does child have pain? | 91 | 4 | 4 | 85 | |
| Parental Rating sub score | 4.19/5 (84 %) | ‘Good’ | |||
| B. Gait assessment | Yes | Not fully/with assistance | No | Mean scores (%) | |
| 6. Squatting | 84 | 14 | 1 | 84 | |
| 7. Walking | 98 | 1 | 0 | 99 | |
| 8. Running | 98 | 1 | 0 | 99 | |
| 9. Up/down steps | 95 | 4 | 0 | 96 | |
| Gait assessment sub score | 3.75/4 (94 %) | ‘Very good’ | |||
| C. Clinical examination | Valgus | Straight | Varus | Mean scores (%) | |
| 10. Heel position - left | 3 | 60 | 13 | 13 | |
| Heel position - right | 4 | 65 | 11 | 9 | |
| >0 dorsiflexion | 0/90 degrees | <0 dorsiflexion | Mean scores (%) | ||
| 11. Ankle range - left | 65 | 11 | 0 | 79 | |
| Ankle range - right | 70 | 8 | 2 | 85 | |
| Clinical examination sub score | 1.30/2 (65 %) | ‘Fair’ | |||
| Total score | 9.24/11 (84 %) | ‘Good’ |
# Ratings
Very good: 85–100 %, Good: 70 – 85 %, Fair: 60–70 %, Poor: <50 %
~ many children were did not have shoes
Note: Scores for bilateral cases were halved to achieve same scale/foot for section C/clinical examination
Relapse assessment results
| Relapse L/R/Both | Ankle L | Ankle R | Forefoot L | Forefoot R | Combined L | Combined R | Relapse type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | Total, R | |||
| 2 | 1 | 2 | Partial, R | ||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | Partial, R | ||||
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Partial, B | ||
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | Total, R | |||
| 6 | 1 | 1 | Partial, L | ||||
| 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | Total, B |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | Partial, R | ||||
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Partial, B | ||
| 10 | 1 | 1 | Partial, L | ||||
| 11 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Partial, B | ||
| 12 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | Total, B |
| 13 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | Total, B |
There were 13/99 children showing relapse signs four years after their treatment. Of these, only 5 cases were more fixed, and 8 cases were flexible and functional feet
•Fixed ankle equinus and adduction and cavus (partial relapse)
•Heel varus and ankle equinus, midfoot cavus, forefoot adduction (total relapse)
Descriptive data for the 99 cases available for follow up review four years after Ponseti method clubfoot treatment
| Variable | Mean | Std Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 5.01 | 0.94 | 3.00 | 7.50 | 4.50 |
| Age at first cast (years) | 1.01 | 0.78 | 0.20 | 2.40 | 2.20 |
| Initial Pirani L | 4.64 | 1.01 | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Initial Pirani R | 4.71 | 0.93 | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| No. casts pre tenotomy | 4.89 (median = 5 casts) | 2.39 (median = 2 casts) | 1 | 17 | 16 |
Fig. 1The average age of the children returning for review was five years
Father’s monthly wages and occupation categories
| 1 | Guard | Tk 5000 (US$ 60) |
| Day labourer | ||
| builder | ||
| Shop worker | ||
| Fisherman | ||
| Hawker | ||
| Rickshaw puller | ||
| 2 | Garment or factory worker | Tk 10,000 (US$ 120) |
| Helper to bus driver | ||
| Mechanic | ||
| Hospital porter | ||
| Farmer | ||
| Imam | ||
| Laundry worker | ||
| 3 | Car driver | Tk 20,000 (US$ 240) |
| owns own business | ||
| Clerk in office | ||
| Teacher | ||
| Police officer | ||
| Working for NGO | ||
| 4 | Working abroad | Tk 20,0000 (>US$ 240) |
| Banker | ||
| Doctor | ||
| Army | ||
| Engineer |
From the 99 returning cases, there were 16 in category 1, 38 in category 2, 43 in category 3, and 2 in category 4
The majority of families had one earning member, usually the father
| No. earning members per family |
|
|---|---|
| 1 | 69 |
| 2 | 25 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
If the earning family member becomes ill or injured, another (usually the mother) will have to work more, be this paid/unpaid. Visits to clinics become much less likely under such circumstances
Housing material was collected as a proxy measure of family affluence
| Housing materials |
| Affluence level |
|---|---|---|
| Brick | 13 | 1 (highest) |
| Tin | 78 | 2 |
| Bamboo/wood | 2 | 3 |
| Mud | 6 | 4 (lowest) |
Correlations were repeatedly found between the need for further treatment and various parent ratings, as well as children’s mobility
| Moderate strength correlations | 0.50 – 0.70, |
| Age at first cast | rho = 0.597* |
| Number of casts before the tenotomy | rho = 0.550* |
| Number of casts before the tenotomy | rho = −0.513** |
| Brace use at 3 months | rho = −0.596** |
| Walking | rho = −0.679** |
| Running | rho = −0.679** |
| Further treatment | rho = −0.679** |
| Strong correlations | >0.70, |
| Parent happiness | rho = 0.862** |
| Parent happiness | rho = 0.700** |
| Parent satisfaction domain | rho = 0.907** |
| Ability to squat | rho = −0.703** |
| Ability to walk or run | rho = 0.703** |
| Need for further treatment | rho = 0.706** |
| Perfect correlations | =0.100, |
| Parents’ rating of child’s play | rho = −0.100** |
| Ability to manage stairs | rho = −0.100** |
*p < 0.05 and **p < 0.001
Fig. 2Schematic diagram showing related treatment factors and significant bivariate correlations with parent satisfaction (p < 0.01; rho)