Clubfoot patients show more anterior-posterior displacement during one-leg-standing and less ankle power and plantarflexor moment during one-leg-hopping than typically developing children.

BACKGROUND: Clubfoot patients show good-to-excellent foot correction after the Ponseti method. Nevertheless, underlying functional problems that limit motor abilities such as one-leg-standing and one-leg-hopping still persist. These restrictions have been proposed to arise due to problems with maintaining balance and the limited force-generating capacity of clubfoot patients. More insight is needed to understand the underlying limiting factors to improve overall motor ability in clubfoot patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: The aim of this study was to determine the differences between clubfoot patients and typically developing children (TDC) in force and balance parameters during walking, one-leg-standing and hopping. METHODS: Three-dimensional motion analysis was performed in 19 TDC and 16 idiopathic Ponseti-treated clubfoot patients between 5-9 years old. Kinematic and kinetic parameters were calculated during walking and one-leg-hopping. To describe the balance parameters, center of pressure (CoP) data was assessed during walking, one-leg-hopping and one-leg-standing. Mean group values were calculated and compared using nonparametric statistical tests. A general linear model with repeated measures was used to determine which activity showed the largest group differences. RESULTS: Clubfoot patients showed lower peak plantarflexor moment and peak ankle power absorption and generation during one-leg-hopping compared to TDC. Furthermore, clubfoot patients showed a lower hop length and velocity than TDC. The difference in peak plantarflexor moment and ankle power between the study groups was larger during one-leg-hopping than during walking. Finally, clubfoot patients showed a higher anterior-posterior CoP range during one-leg-standing. SIGNIFICANCE: Deviations in force parameters seemed to limit one-leg-hopping in clubfoot patients, and impaired anterior-posterior static balance was thought to be the underlying cause of problems with one-leg-standing. Furthermore, one-leg-hopping was more sensitive to distinguish between clubfoot patients and TDC than walking. Individualized physiotherapy targeting static balance and force parameters, with extra emphasis on including eccentric contractions, might improve the overall motor abilities of clubfoot patients.

Muscle-tendon properties and functional gait outcomes in clubfoot patients with and without a relapse compared to typically developing children.

BACKGROUND: Altered muscle-tendon properties in clubfoot patients could play a role in the occurrence of a relapse and negatively affect physical functioning. However, there is a lack of literature about muscle-tendon properties of clubfoot relapse patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: The aim of this study was to determine whether the muscle architecture of the medial gastrocnemius and the morphology of the Achilles tendon differ between typically developing children (TDC) and clubfoot patients with and without a relapse clubfoot and to determine the relationships between morphological and functional gait outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in clubfoot patients treated according to the Ponseti method and TDC aged 4-8 years. A division between clubfoot patients with and without a relapse was made. Fifteen clubfoot patients, 10 clubfoot relapse patients and 19 TDC were included in the study. Morphologic properties of the medial head of the Gastrocnemius muscle and Achilles tendon were assessed by ultrasonography. Functional gait outcomes were assessed using three-dimensional gait analysis. Mean group differences were analysed with ANOVA and non-parametric alternatives. Relationships between functional and morphologic parameters were determined for all clubfoot patients together and for TDC with Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: Morphological and functional gait parameters did not differ between clubfoot patients with and without a relapse, with exception of lower maximal dorsiflexor moment in clubfoot relapse patients. Compared to TDC, clubfoot and relapse patients did show lower functional gait outcomes, as well as shorter and more pennate muscles with a longer Achilles tendon. In all clubfoot patients, this longer relative tendon was related to higher ankle power and plantarflexor moment. SIGNIFICANCE: In clubfoot and relapse patients, abnormalities in morphology did not always relate to worse functional gait outcomes. Understanding these relationships in all clubfoot patients may improve the knowledge about clubfoot and aid future treatment planning.

Forefoot adduction and forefoot supination as kinematic indicators of relapse clubfoot.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the kinematic characteristics of relapse clubfoot compared to successfully treated clubfoot could aid early identification of a relapse and improve treatment planning. The usage of a multi segment foot model is essential in order to grasp the full complexity of the multi-planar and multi-joint deformity of the clubfoot. RESEARCH QUESTION: The purpose of this study was to identify differences in foot kinematics, using a multi-segment foot model, during gait between patients with Ponseti treated clubfoot with and without a relapse and age-matched healthy controls. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out including 11 patients with relapse clubfoot, 11 patients with clubfoot and 15 controls. Gait analysis was performed using an extended Helen Hayes model combined with the Oxford Foot Model. Statistical analysis included statistical parametric mapping and discrete analysis of kinematic gait parameters of the pelvis, hip, knee, ankle, hindfoot and forefoot in the sagittal, frontal and transversal plane. RESULTS: The relapse group showed significantly increased forefoot adduction in relation with the hindfoot and the tibia. Furthermore, this group showed increased forefoot supination in relation with the tibia during stance, whereas during swing increased forefoot supination in relation with the hindfoot was found in patients with relapse clubfoot compared with non-relapse clubfoot. SIGNIFICANCE: Forefoot adduction and forefoot supination could be kinematic indicators of relapse clubfoot, which might be useful in early identification of a relapse clubfoot. Subsequently, this could aid the optimization of clinical decision making and treatment planning for children with clubfoot.