E de La Taille1, J Sales de Gauzy2, M Gaubert Noirot3. 1. 1, chemin de la pigeonnière, 31570 Tarabel, France. Electronic address: eleonore.delataille@wanadoo.fr. 2. Hôpital des Enfants, 330, avenue de Grande-Bretagne, 31026 Toulouse, France. 3. 2, rue Jean-Suau, 31000 Toulouse, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since Hippocrates, the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot has undergone many changes, with surgical techniques and conservative approaches evolving over the centuries. Today, a wide variety of practices exist in France and throughout the world; consequently, the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot remains controversial, but the Ponseti method and the functional method seem to stand out. Nevertheless, has one of them demonstrated superiority? METHODS: The purpose of this review is to compare these two methods. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 recommendations, this research was conducted on Pubmed, Web of Science, and 1Findr. Only articles concerning patients with moderate or severe idiopathic clubfoot (10-17 on the Dimeglio scale) treated early using the Ponseti method or the functional method were eligible. RESULTS: After reviewing 49 studies, seven published between 2008 and 2018 were selected: five prospective cohort studies, one retrospective cohort study, and one meta-analysis. Each method, according to morphological and kinetic criteria, seems to have advantages that the other does not have. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Ponseti method is becoming the gold standard and appears more appropriate in poor countries, it is impossible to affirm its superiority over the functional method. Therefore, the combination of their advantages deserves attention: a hybrid method could be an appealing prospect for the future.
BACKGROUND: Since Hippocrates, the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot has undergone many changes, with surgical techniques and conservative approaches evolving over the centuries. Today, a wide variety of practices exist in France and throughout the world; consequently, the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot remains controversial, but the Ponseti method and the functional method seem to stand out. Nevertheless, has one of them demonstrated superiority? METHODS: The purpose of this review is to compare these two methods. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 recommendations, this research was conducted on Pubmed, Web of Science, and 1Findr. Only articles concerning patients with moderate or severe idiopathic clubfoot (10-17 on the Dimeglio scale) treated early using the Ponseti method or the functional method were eligible. RESULTS: After reviewing 49 studies, seven published between 2008 and 2018 were selected: five prospective cohort studies, one retrospective cohort study, and one meta-analysis. Each method, according to morphological and kinetic criteria, seems to have advantages that the other does not have. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Ponseti method is becoming the gold standard and appears more appropriate in poor countries, it is impossible to affirm its superiority over the functional method. Therefore, the combination of their advantages deserves attention: a hybrid method could be an appealing prospect for the future.