Department of Pediatric Orthopaedics, Xin-Hua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665, Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Apr;472(4):1329-36. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3463-7. Epub 2014 Jan 17.
Although the Ponseti method is accepted as the best choice for treatment of clubfoot, the treatment protocol is labor intensive and requires strict attention to details. Deviations in strict use of this method are likely responsible for the variations among centers in reported success rates.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We wished to determine (1) to what degree the Ponseti method was followed in terms of manipulation, casting, and percutaneous Achilles tenotomy, (2) whether there was variation in the bracing type and protocol used for relapse prevention, and (3) if the same criteria were used to diagnose and manage clubfoot relapse.
We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE(TM), and the Cochrane Library. Studies were summarized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement. Five hundred ninety-one records were identified with 409 remaining after deduplication, in which 278 irrelevant studies and 22 review articles were excluded. Of the remaining 109 papers, 19 met our inclusion criteria. All 19 articles were therapeutic studies of the Ponseti method.
The details of manipulation, casting, or percutaneous Achilles tenotomy of the Ponseti method were poorly described in 11 studies, whereas the main principles were not followed in three studies. In three studies, the brace type deviated significantly from that recommended, whereas in another three studies the bracing protocol in terms of hours of recommended use was not followed. Furthermore no unified criteria were used for judgment of compliance with brace use. The indication for recognition and management of relapse varied among studies and was different from the original description of the Ponseti method.
We found that the observed clinically important variation may have been the result of deviations from the details regarding manipulation, casting, percutaneous Achilles tenotomy, use of the bar-connected brace, and indication for relapse recognition and management recommended for the classic Ponseti approach to clubfoot management. We strongly recommend that clinicians follow the Ponseti method as it initially was described without deviation to optimize treatment outcomes.
虽然潘塞提(Ponseti)方法被认为是治疗马蹄足的最佳选择,但该治疗方案需要大量的人力,并且需要严格注意细节。严格使用该方法的偏差可能是导致各中心报告成功率差异的原因。
问题/目的:我们希望确定(1)在手法操作、石膏固定和经皮跟腱切断术方面,潘塞提方法的遵循程度;(2)用于预防复发的支具类型和方案是否存在差异;(3)是否使用相同的标准来诊断和管理马蹄足复发。
我们对 MEDLINE、EMBASE(TM)和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统评价。研究根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目进行总结。通过去重后共识别出 591 条记录,其中 278 条不相关的研究和 22 篇综述文章被排除。在剩余的 109 篇论文中,有 19 篇符合我们的纳入标准。所有 19 篇文章都是潘塞提方法的治疗研究。
在 11 项研究中,潘塞提方法的手法操作、石膏固定或经皮跟腱切断术的细节描述较差,而在 3 项研究中没有遵循主要原则。在 3 项研究中,支具类型与推荐的类型有很大差异,而在另外 3 项研究中,支具使用时间的方案没有得到遵循。此外,没有统一的标准用于判断支具使用的依从性。在复发的识别和管理方面,研究之间存在差异,并且与潘塞提方法的原始描述不同。
我们发现,观察到的临床重要差异可能是由于在手法操作、石膏固定、经皮跟腱切断术、使用棒连接支具以及用于识别和管理马蹄足复发的适应症方面偏离了经典潘塞提方法的细节所致。我们强烈建议临床医生在不偏离的情况下遵循最初描述的潘塞提方法,以优化治疗结果。