Submitted:
05 December 2023
Posted:
06 December 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study population
2.2. Demographic characteristics
2.3. Sonographic measurements
2.4. The postnatal assessment and treatment
2.5. Statistical analysis
3.1. The differences in deviated angle, calf volume and calf circumference between treated group and non-treated group.
3.2. The ROC curve for prediction of postnatal treatment
3.3. Subgroup analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Offerdal, K.; Jebens, N.; Blaas, H.G.; Eik-Nes, S.H. Prenatal ultrasound detection of talipes equinovarus in a non-selected population of 49 314 deliveries in Norway. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007, 30, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tillett, R.L.; Fisk, N.M.; Murphy, K.; Hunt, D.M. Clinical outcome of congenital talipes equinovarus diagnosed antenatally by ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000, 82, 876–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bar-On, E.; Mashiach, R.; Inbar, O.; Weigl, D.; Katz, K.; Meizner, I. Prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of club foot: outcome and recommendations for counselling and follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005, 87, 990–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shipp, T.D.; Benacerraf, B.R. The significance of prenatally identified isolated clubfoot: is amniocentesis indicated? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998, 178, 600–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keret, D.; Ezra, E.; Lokiec, F.; Hayek, S.; Segev, E.; Wientroub, S. Efficacy of prenatal ultrasonography in confirmed club foot. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002, 84, 1015–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mammen, L.; Benson, C.B. Outcome of fetuses with clubfeet diagnosed by prenatal sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2004, 23, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bleck, E.E. Club foot. Dev Med Child Neurol 1993, 35, 927–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ganger, R.; Radler, C.; Handlbauer, A.; Grill, F. External fixation in clubfoot treatment - a review of the literature. J Pediatr Orthop B 2012, 21, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, R.C.; Costa, M.T. Recurrent clubfoot--approach and treatment with external fixation. Foot Ankle Clin 2009, 14, 435–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hefti, F. Pediatric Orthopedics in Practice. Springer Verlag Science & Business Med 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, A.; Labar, A.S.; Sala, D.A.; van Bosse, H.J.; Lehman, W.B. Clubfoot classification: correlation with Ponseti cast treatment. J Pediatr Orthop 2010, 30, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergerault, F.; Fournier, J.; Bonnard, C. Idiopathic congenital clubfoot: Initial treatment. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013, 99, S150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treadwell, M.C.; Stanitski, C.L.; King, M. Prenatal sonographic diagnosis of clubfoot: implications for patient counseling. J Pediatr Orthop 1999, 19, 8–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glotzbecker, M.P.; Estroff, J.A.; Spencer, S.A.; Bosley, J.C.; Parad, R.B.; Kasser, J.R.; Mahan, S.T. Prenatally diagnosed clubfeet: comparing ultrasonographic severity with objective clinical outcomes. J Pediatr Orthop 2010, 30, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brasseur-Daudruy, M.; Abu Amara, S.; Ickowicz-Onnient, V.; Touleimat, S.; Verspyck, E. Clubfoot Versus Positional Foot Deformities on Prenatal Ultrasound Imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2020, 39, 615–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanna, M.; Casati, D.; Torre, C.; Monforte, S.; Andreacchio, A.; Faiola, S.; Cetin, I.; Rustico, M. Congenital isolated clubfoot: Correlation between prenatal assessment and postnatal degree of severity. Prenat Diagn 2020, 40, 1547–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goncalves, L.F. Three-dimensional ultrasound of the fetus: how does it help? Pediatr Radiol 2016, 46, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosma, D.; Vasilescu, D.E. A Clinical Evaluation of the Pirani and Dimeglio Idiopathic Clubfoot Classifications. J Foot Ankle Surg 2015, 54, 582–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glotzbecker, M.P.; Estroff, J.A.; Curtis, T.A.; Kalish, L.A.; Spencer, S.A.; Parad, R.B.; Kasser, J.R.; Mahan, S.T. Prospective evaluation of a prenatal sonographic clubfoot classification system. Fetal Diagn Ther 2013, 34, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ippolito, E.; De Maio, F.; Mancini, F.; Bellini, D.; Orefice, A. Leg muscle atrophy in idiopathic congenital clubfoot: is it primitive or acquired? J Child Orthop 2009, 3, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hershkovitz, R.; Tepper, R. Sonographic nomogram of the fetal calf between 15 and 42 weeks' gestation using 3-dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2008, 27, 701–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brazell, C.; Carry, P.M.; Jones, A.; Baschal, R.; Miller, N.; Holmes, K.S.; Georgopoulos, G. Dimeglio Score Predicts Treatment Difficulty During Ponseti Casting for Isolated Clubfoot. J Pediatr Orthop 2019, 39, e402–e405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dimeglio, A.; Bensahel, H.; Souchet, P.; Mazeau, P.; Bonnet, F. Classification of clubfoot. J Pediatr Orthop B 1995, 4, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]





| Treated group (N=37) |
Non-treated group (N= 10) |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal age (years) | 32 (31-35) | 34 (30.5-35.7) | 0.514 |
| BMI (m2/kg) | 27.05 (24.5–28.9) | 28.7(26.9-9.2) | 0.475 |
| Preeclampsia | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (10%) | 0.895 |
| Gestational diabetes | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | NA |
| GA of US evaluation (weeks) | 25 +6 (23+1–27+3) | 26+4 (25+4–30+2) | 0.088 |
| Presentation before delivery | 0.407 | ||
| Cephalic | 35 (94.6%) | 8 (80%) | |
| Breech | 2 (5.4%) | 2 (20%) | |
| Cesarean delivery | 35 (67.6%) | 3 (30%) | 0.074 |
| GA of delivery (weeks) | 38 +2 (36+5-39+3) | 38+2 (36+3-39.0) | 0.865 |
| Preterm delivery (<37 weeks) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (10%) | 0.895 |
| Neonatal sex (male) | 21 (56.8%) | 3 (30%) | 0.252 |
| Birth weight (g) | 3120 (2810-3531) | 3037.5 (2978-3233) | 0.474 |
| Unilateral clubfoot | 12 (32.4%) | 3 (30%) | 1.000 |
| Serial cast treatment | 37 | 0 | <0.05 |
| Achilles tendon percutaneous tenotomy | 22 | 0 | <0.05 |
| Treated group (N=37) |
Non-treated group (N= 10) |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3D US variables | |||
| Equinus (°) | 12.1 (3.3-22.5) | 15.3 (6.4-22.0) | 0.612 |
| Varus (°) | 60.5 (50.6-71.4) | 46.6 (25.8-52.2) | 0.026 |
| Derotation of CPB (°) | 67.6 (58.2-88.2) | 26.6 (23.0-32.8) | <0.05 |
| Adduction of forefoot (°) | 22.4 (15.9-30) | 19.7 (17.3-25.0) | 0.649 |
| Volume of calf (cm3) a | 5.16 (3.57-8.68) | 6.59 (5.7-8.18) | 0.257 |
| Circumfernce of calf (cm) a | 6.5 (5.79-8.03) | 7.68 (7-8.8) | 0.073 |
| 2D US variable | |||
| Angle between the long axis of the foot and the lower leg (°) |
80 (66-100) | 95 (61-103.75) | 0.794 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).