XXXX in Clubfoot as Measured by Ultrasonography: Can It be Used as a Prognostic Indicator in @entity5149 ? A Prospective Observational Study.

@entity1 @entity558 @entity18299 @entity5149 @entity24185 @entity6349 @entity1141
BACKGROUND: @entity5149 ( @entity5149 )/clubfoot is the most common @entity558 . The success rate of Ponseti casting in the hands of the legend himself is not 100%. The prediction of difficult to correct foot and recurrences still remains a mystery to be solved. We all know that tarsal bones are @entity6349 in clubfoot and considering it; we hypothesize that the amount of @entity24185 can predict management duration and outcome. In literature we were not able to find studies that satisfactorily quantify the amount of @entity24185 . Hence, it was considered worthwhile to quantify the amount of @entity1141 in tarsal bone and to correlate these parameters with the duration and outcome of treatment by conventional method. METHODS: A total of 25 @entity1 with unilateral idiopathic clubfoot that have not taken any previous treatment were included in the study. An initial ultrasonography was done before start of treatment in 3 standard planes to measure the maximum length of 3 tarsal bones (talus, calcaneus, and navicular). Ponseti method of treatment was used; pirani scoring was done at each OPD (out @entity1 department) visit. Number of casts required for complete correction and need for any surgical intervention were taken as the outcome parameters. RESULTS: We found that there is a significant correlation between number of casts required and the @entity1141 of talus (a error=0.05). We also found a significant negative correlation between relative @entity1141 of talus and number of casts required (r=-0.629 sig=0.001, r=-0.552 sig=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: @entity18299 as quantified by using ultrasonography can be used as a prognostic indicator in @entity5149 . Although promising the method needs further studies and can be more useful after long-term follow-up where recurrences if any can be documented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
