Publication: Comparison of kinematics and pedobarography findings between the unaffected foot of patients with unilateral clubfoot and controls
0
0
Issued Date
2024-09-01
Resource Type
ISSN
03412695
eISSN
14325195
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85193242657
Pubmed ID
38758492
Journal Title
International Orthopaedics
Volume
48
Issue
9
Start Page
2465
End Page
2473
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
International Orthopaedics Vol.48 No.9 (2024) , 2465-2473
Suggested Citation
Jiratummarat P., Osateerakun P., Tooptakong T., Limpaphayom N. Comparison of kinematics and pedobarography findings between the unaffected foot of patients with unilateral clubfoot and controls. International Orthopaedics Vol.48 No.9 (2024) , 2465-2473. 2473. doi:10.1007/s00264-024-06219-z Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/20103
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Purpose: Idiopathic clubfoot (ICF) involves structural abnormalities in the lower extremities. Approximately half of patients have unilateral ICF, which could be due to differences in limb formation. The contralateral unaffected foot may have subclinical ICF. The objectives were to compare ankle and foot kinematics and pedobarography findings between the unaffected foot of patients with unilateral ICF and controls. Methods: Eleven children with unilateral ICF (11 unaffected feet, 11.7 ± 3.8 years) and 15 age-matched controls (30 control feet, 11.1 ± 3.0 years) were enroled. Five complete gait trials were performed. Data were collected using ten cameras and a two m long Footscan system and compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: All children with ICF underwent the selective soft tissue release procedure. The unaffected feet showed limited ranges in inversion-eversion and dorsiflexion-plantar flexion on kinematic analysis. There was a delay in landing time in all regions of the foot during heel rise and propulsion. The peak time was achieved significantly later in the unaffected feet compared to the controls. Although plantar pressure parameters were comparable, unaffected feet showed a larger contact area in the midfoot region. Conclusions: Gait data on the unaffected foot in unilateral ICF patients do not correspond to those of controls despite an indistinguishable clinical appearance. This could be due to the effect of treatment, the process of foot development, or a combination. The relationship between genetics and gait deviation in patients with unilateral ICF needs further evaluation. The unaffected foot should receive similar attention during follow-up.