Comparison of different conservative treatments for idiopathic clubfoot: Ponseti’s versus non-Ponseti’s methods

Abstract

Objective Various methods are applied in the clinical treatment of idiopathic clubfoot. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of different conservative treatments. Methods Studies were pooled and odds ratio (ORs) with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated for evaluation of the results, relapses, and requirement for major surgery. Results A final analysis of 1435 patients from 9 eligible studies was performed. The combined OR indicated that significantly more fair and poor results were achieved and that major surgery was required significantly more often when using non-Ponseti’s methods (OR = 3.33 and OR = 7.32, respectively), but no significant difference was detected in the occurrence of relapse (OR = 1.34). Pooled OR evaluation showed a significantly higher rate of fair and poor results, relapse, and requirement for major surgery when using Kite’s method than when using Ponseti’s method (OR = 3.93, OR = 2.53, and OR = 3.19, respectively), but no significant difference was detected between the French method and Ponseti’s method (OR = 3.01, OR = 0.72, and OR = 1.26, respectively). Conclusions This meta-analysis indicates that Ponseti’s method is safe and efficient for conservative treatment of clubfoot and decreases the number of surgical interventions required. It is recommended as the first-choice conservative treatment for idiopathic clubfoot.