Development of foot length in children with congenital clubfoot up to 7 years of age: a prospective follow-up study.
Clubfoot
Foot growth
Foot length
Relapse
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 May 2021
27 May 2021
Historique:
received:
04
12
2020
accepted:
05
05
2021
entrez:
28
5
2021
pubmed:
29
5
2021
medline:
1
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clubfeet are typically shorter than normal feet. This study aimed first to describe the development of foot length in a consecutive series of children with congenital clubfoot and second to relate foot length to development of relapse and motion quality. Foot length was measured every 6 months in 72 consecutive children with congenital clubfoot (29 bilateral) aged from 2 to 7 years. The initial treatment was nonsurgical followed by standardized orthotic treatment. Foot length growth rate was calculated every half year. In children with unilateral clubfeet, the difference in foot length between the clubfoot and the contralateral foot was calculated. Motion quality was evaluated by the Clubfoot Assessment Protocol (CAP). Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's correlation were used for group comparisons. Bonferroni correction was used when multiple comparisons were performed. Clubfeet were smaller (P < 0.001) than reference feet at all ages but had a similar growth rate up to age 7. Unilateral clubfeet with greater difference in size compared with the contralateral foot at the first measurement, relapsed more frequently (P = 0.016) and correlated with poorer motion quality (r = 0.4; P = 0.011). As previously reported, clubfeet were smaller than reference feet at all ages. The growth rate, however, was similar between clubfeet and reference feet. Children with unilateral clubfeet and greater foot length difference at 2 years of age had a higher tendency to relapse and poorer motion quality at 7 years of age, indicating that foot length could be used as a prognostic tool.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clubfeet are typically shorter than normal feet. This study aimed first to describe the development of foot length in a consecutive series of children with congenital clubfoot and second to relate foot length to development of relapse and motion quality.
METHODS
METHODS
Foot length was measured every 6 months in 72 consecutive children with congenital clubfoot (29 bilateral) aged from 2 to 7 years. The initial treatment was nonsurgical followed by standardized orthotic treatment. Foot length growth rate was calculated every half year. In children with unilateral clubfeet, the difference in foot length between the clubfoot and the contralateral foot was calculated. Motion quality was evaluated by the Clubfoot Assessment Protocol (CAP). Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's correlation were used for group comparisons. Bonferroni correction was used when multiple comparisons were performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Clubfeet were smaller (P < 0.001) than reference feet at all ages but had a similar growth rate up to age 7. Unilateral clubfeet with greater difference in size compared with the contralateral foot at the first measurement, relapsed more frequently (P = 0.016) and correlated with poorer motion quality (r = 0.4; P = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
As previously reported, clubfeet were smaller than reference feet at all ages. The growth rate, however, was similar between clubfeet and reference feet. Children with unilateral clubfeet and greater foot length difference at 2 years of age had a higher tendency to relapse and poorer motion quality at 7 years of age, indicating that foot length could be used as a prognostic tool.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34044803
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04323-4
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04323-4
pmc: PMC8161945
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
487Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Dec 5;100(23):2015-2023
pubmed: 30516624
JBJS Rev. 2019 May;7(5):e6
pubmed: 31116129
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2019 Mar;28(2):153-158
pubmed: 30260843
J Pediatr Orthop. 2007 Jan-Feb;27(1):54-9
pubmed: 17195799
BMC Pediatr. 2009 Dec 15;9:78
pubmed: 20003483
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2004 May;13(3):189-96
pubmed: 15083120
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005 Jul 18;6:40
pubmed: 16022741
J Child Orthop. 2017 Dec 1;11(6):434-439
pubmed: 29263755
J Child Orthop. 2009 Jun;3(3):171-8
pubmed: 19418086
Gait Posture. 2016 Oct;50:8-13
pubmed: 27544063
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 Mar 15;7:28
pubmed: 16539716
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Jul;25(7):536-545
pubmed: 28574943
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jul;85(7):1286-94
pubmed: 12851354
J Pediatr Orthop. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):498-502
pubmed: 12826950
Acta Orthop Scand. 1992 Apr;63(2):183-8
pubmed: 1590054
Iowa Orthop J. 2002;22:55-6
pubmed: 12180612
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2009 Sep;18(5):214-9
pubmed: 19581818
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Sep;34(5):502-8
pubmed: 24697967
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Aug 6;96(15):1249-1256
pubmed: 25100771
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Oct;77(10):1477-89
pubmed: 7593056
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 May;(140):32-6
pubmed: 477084
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Mar;25(3):195-203
pubmed: 28195983
Gait Posture. 2012 Mar;35(3):389-94
pubmed: 22118730
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Oct;451:171-6
pubmed: 16788408
J Pediatr Orthop. 2006 May-Jun;26(3):329-35
pubmed: 16670544
BMC Res Notes. 2009 Jun 12;2:103
pubmed: 19523200
Gait Posture. 2007 Apr;25(4):597-603
pubmed: 16904892
J Child Orthop. 2019 Jun 1;13(3):252-257
pubmed: 31312264
Acta Orthop. 2006 Dec;77(6):847-52
pubmed: 17260191