↓ Skip to main content

Does Strict Adherence to the Ponseti Method Improve Isolated Clubfoot Treatment Outcomes? A Two-institution Review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Does Strict Adherence to the Ponseti Method Improve Isolated Clubfoot Treatment Outcomes? A Two-institution Review
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4559-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy H. Miller, Patrick M. Carry, Bryan J. Mark, Glenn H. Engelman, Gaia Georgopoulos, Sue Graham, Matthew B. Dobbs

Abstract

Despite being recognized as the gold standard in isolated clubfoot treatment, the Ponseti casting method has yielded variable results. Few studies have directly compared common predictors of treatment failure between institutions with high versus low failure rates. We asked: (1) is the provider's rigid adherence to the Ponseti method associated with a lower likelihood of unplanned clubfoot surgery, and (2) at the institution that did not adhere rigidly to Ponseti's principles, are any demographic or treatment-related factors associated with increased likelihood of unplanned clubfoot surgery? After institutional review board approval, a consecutive series of patients with a diagnosis of isolated clubfoot who underwent treatment between January 2003 and December 2007 were identified. At Institution 1, 91 of 133 patients met the eligibility criteria and were followed for a minimum of 2 years compared with 58 of 58 patients at Institution 2. At Institution 1, 16 providers managed care using a conservative casting approach based on the Ponseti method. However, treatment was adapted by the provider(s). At Institution 2, one orthopaedic surgeon managed care with strict adherence to the Ponseti method. Surgical indications at both institutions included the presence of a persistent equinovarus foot position while standing. A chart review was used to collect data related to proportion of patients undergoing unplanned additional treatment for deformity recurrences after Ponseti casting, demographics, and treatment patterns. The proportion of subjects who underwent unplanned major surgical intervention was greater (odds ratio [OR], 51.1; 95% CI, 6.8-384.0; p < 0.001) at Institution 1 (60 of 131, 47%) compared with Institution 2 (two of 91, 2%). There was no difference (p = 0.200) in the proportion of patients who underwent additional casting, repeat tendo Achilles lengthening, and/or anterior tibialis tendon transfer only (minor recurrence) at Institution 1 (nine of 131, 7%) compared with Institution 2 (11 of 91, 13%). At Institution 1, an increase in the number of revision casts (multiple vs no casts, hazard ratio [HR] = 3.9; 95% CI, 2.0-7.6; p < 0.001) and an increase in the number of cast-related complications (multiple vs no complications, HR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.7; p = 0.019) were associated with increased risk of major surgery in the multivariate analysis. Rigid commitment to the Ponseti method in the conservative treatment of patients with isolated clubfoot was associated with a lower risk of subsequent unplanned surgical intervention. In addition, clubfoot treatment programs that use a care model that prioritizes continuity in care and dedication to the Ponseti method may decrease the proportion of patients who undergo unplanned surgical intervention. Level III, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#14,536,007
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,429
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,873
of 285,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#47
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.