Literature DB >> 30705561

Is the same brace fit for all? The length of abduction bar in Steenbeek foot abduction brace for Indian children-A pilot study.

Anil Agarwal1, Nargesh Agrawal1, Anurajan Dubey1, Neeraj Gupta1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We measured the foot size and shoulder width in North Indian children with idiopathic clubfoot and calculated the corresponding metal rod length for abduction brace. The differences in the foot length in unaffected, unilateral and bilateral clubfeet were also measured. PATIENT AND METHODS: Two sets of measurements were taken on each child: feet size and shoulder width. Using statistical analysis, the following were compared: Differences in the manual prescribed and our calculated SFAB bar length, foot size in unilateral clubfoot and unaffected foot and both feet in bilateral clubfoot.
RESULTS: There were 156 patients with 76 unilateral (37 left + 39 right) and 80 bilateral feet. The mean prescribed bar length for foot sizes 8-14 in the Steenbeek manual is 30.18 cm. The mean predicted bar length worked out to be 22.33 cm in our series (p < 0.001). In unilateral clubfoot, the mean foot length (11.9 cm) when matched with unaffected foot (12.6 cm) was comparable (p = 0.08). Bilateral clubfeet lengths (12.29 cm versus 12.3 cm) were also comparable (p = 0.978).
CONCLUSIONS: There was significant difference between the prescribed and the predicted bar length in foot sizes 8-14 with a smaller bar length measurement of Indian children. The Ponseti treated unilateral club foot length matched the unaffected foot. The foot lengths in bilateral feet disease were also similar.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CTEV; Clubfoot; Foot abduction brace

Year:  2017        PMID: 30705561      PMCID: PMC6349614          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.10.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0976-5662


  5 in total

1.  Anthropometric study of patients treated for clubfoot.

Authors:  Cumhur Cevdet Kesemenli; Ahmet Kapukaya; Mehmet Subaşi; Serdar Necmioglu; Hüseyin Arslan; Davut Ozbag; Yusuf Celik
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.324

Review 2.  Bracing in the treatment of children with clubfoot: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Lajja Desai; Florin Oprescu; Andrew DiMeo; Jose A Morcuende
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2010

3.  Quantitative gait characteristics of children who had successful unilateral clubfoot operation.

Authors:  Ertuğrul Akşahin; H Yalçın Yüksel; Güneş Yavuzer; Hasan Hilmi Muratlı; Levent Celebi; Ali Biçimlioğlu
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.511

4.  Subjective and objective outcome in congenital clubfoot; a comparative study of 204 children.

Authors:  David Chesney; Simon Barker; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 5.  Relapse of clubfoot after treatment with the Ponseti method and the function of the foot abduction orthosis.

Authors:  Dahang Zhao; Jianlin Liu; Li Zhao; Zhenkai Wu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2014-08-05
  5 in total
  2 in total

1.  Bracing in clubfoot: do we know enough?

Authors:  C Alves
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 1.548

2.  A modification of the Ponseti method for clubfoot management: a prospective comparative study.

Authors:  Reda Ali Sheta; Mohamed El-Sayed; Hisham Abdel-Ghani; Sameh Saber; Amani Salah Eldin Mohammed; Tohamy Gouda Tohamy Hassan
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 1.548

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.