Introduction: Congenital clubfeet have increasingly been detected in routine prenatal ultrasound. However, many clubfeet are still missed and surprise the mothers at birth. The complex deformity and different treatment options available seem to make prenatal counseling desirable. Despite published studies on prenatal clubfoot diagnosis by ultrasound, it is unknown if mothers would indeed prefer to know about their child’s clubfoot before birth or not.

Methods: This survey included patients born between 2000 and 2007 who were treated for congenital clubfoot at one of the two participating institutions (center one: East coast USA; center two: Austria). Exclusion criteria were defined as underlying syndrome, genetic abnormality or pregnancy with multiple fetuses. A brief survey about the opinion of mothers towards ultrasound diagnosis of clubfoot consisting of three questions was sent out. A computer database was created for data collection and a statistic analysis was performed.

Results: Surveys were sent out to 401 mothers of patients meeting inclusion criteria. A total of 220 surveys were received back with 105 surveys from center one and 115 surveys from center two. In 97 cases the clubfoot was unilateral and in 123 cases bilateral. Routine ultrasound showed a clubfoot in 91 cases (41%) and failed to show the deformity in 128 cases (59%). The detection rate in center one was 60% compared to 25% in center two. Bilateral clubfeet had a detection rate of 53% whereas unilateral clubfeet had a detection rate of 29%. Between 2000 and the end of 2003 the overall detection rate was 31% versus 50% between 2004 and the end of 2007.

Overall 74% of mothers wanted to know about their baby’s clubfoot before birth and 24% after birth. Of the 91 mothers who had a positive ultrasound 96% wanted to know before birth. Of the 128 patients who had a negative ultrasound 59% would have wanted to know while 38% did not want to know about the clubfoot prenatally. In center one 89% of mothers wanted to know before birth versus only 60 % in center two. Comments on the survey form showed that mothers who had or wanted to have the prenatal diagnosis appreciated the time to prepare and to find out more about the condition and different treatment options. Many wished for more information at the time of prenatal diagnosis. Mothers that would prefer to find out about the clubfoot postnatally feared that the diagnosis would have affected the experience of the pregnancy.

Discussion: Although the detection rate increased over time there are still cases of clubfeet missed in the routine ultrasound, especially in center two where the rate of detection was low. Mothers in the US are more reluctant to know before birth than mothers in Austria which is most likely related to the differences in the two health care systems. Detailed information about the nature and treatment of clubfeet should be given at prenatal diagnosis.

Introduction A randomised, double blind controlled study of the short term results of single portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) versus open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) is presented.

Methods Twenty patients undergoing bilateral carpal tunnel release were inducted into the study. Each patient had one side performed as an ECTR and the other as an OCTR. The side that ECTR was performed on was randomised. Assessment was performed at one, two and six weeks post-operatively by the patient and a blinded hand therapist. The patient was blinded at the one week review. Assessment looked at pain, function and satisfaction, as well as objective strength and motion.

Results All patients prefered the side of the endoscopic release at one, two and six weeks. ECTR was associated with less pain, greater ease of use, improved strength and better motion.

Conclusions There is a significantly improved short term outcome, on both subjective and objective measures, with endoscopic carpal tunnel release compared to open carpal tunnel release.