The Ponseti and French taping methods have reduced
the incidence of major surgery in congenital idiopathic clubfoot
but incur a significant burden of care, including heel-cord tenotomy.
We developed a non-operative regime to reduce treatment intensity
without affecting outcome. We treated 402 primary idiopathic clubfeet
in patients aged <
three months who presented between September
1991 and August 2008. Their Harrold and Walker grades were 6.0%
mild, 25.6% moderate and 68.4% severe. All underwent a dynamic outpatient
taping regime over five weeks based on Ponseti manipulation, modified
Jones strapping and home exercises. Feet with residual equinus (six
feet, 1.5%) or relapse within six months (83 feet, 20.9%) underwent
one to three additional tapings. Correction was maintained with
below-knee splints, exercises and shoes. The clinical outcome at
three years of age (385 feet, 95.8% follow-up) showed that taping
alone corrected 357 feet (92.7%, ‘good’). Late relapses or failure
of taping required limited posterior release in 20 feet (5.2%, ‘fair’)
or posteromedial release in eight feet (2.1%, ‘poor’). The long-term
(>
10 years) outcomes in 44 feet (23.8% follow-up) were assessed
by the Laaveg–Ponseti method as excellent (23 feet, 52.3%), good
(17 feet, 38.6%), fair (three feet, 6.8%) or poor (one foot, 2.3%).
These compare favourably with published long-term results of the
Ponseti or French methods. This dynamic taping regime is a simple
non-operative method that delivers improved medium-term and promising
long-term results. Cite this article:
The aim of this study was to establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and indications, if any, for medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC) repair in patients with patellar instability, using the modified Delphi approach. A total of 60 surgeons from 11 countries were invited to develop consensus statements based on their expertise in this area. They were assigned to one of seven working groups defined by subtopics of interest within patellar instability. Consensus was defined as achieving between 80% and 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as between 90% and 99% agreement, and 100% agreement was considered to be unanimous.Aims
Methods