用皮拉尼评分系统比较Ponseti和Kite治疗先天性马蹄足的方法。

F Kaseke, T Mudawarima
{"title":"用皮拉尼评分系统比较Ponseti和Kite治疗先天性马蹄足的方法。","authors":"F Kaseke,&nbsp;T Mudawarima","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of the Ponseti manipulation versus the \nKite's manipulation in the treatment of idiopathic Congenital Talipes Equino Varus (CTEV) as evaluated by \nthe Pirani score.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An intervention study, prospective non randomized trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Hospital based study at three central hospitals namely Harare Central Hospital (HCH), Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals (PGH) and Chitungwiza Central Hospitals (CCH) in Zimbabwe. Subjects: 38 feet in 25 patients, 13 bilateral and 12 unilateral CTEV deformities in children less than one year of age and without prior manipulation or surgical treatment were purposively allocated to either Ponseti (20 feet) or Kite's method (18 feet) at three central hospitals. There were no dropouts.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Participants in two hospitals were managed using the Ponseti method and one hospital managed participants using the kite's method. Baseline Pirani scores were measured before the first treatment was done. Thereafter they were followed up weekly and analysis was done for three and six week outcomes using the Pirani score. Correction was measured by the difference between the baseline hindfoot, midfoot and total scores and the Pirani scores at three weeks and six weeks. Within group analysis of the data was done using a single student t - test and between groups analysis was done using the independent student t - test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both methods were effective in correcting CTEV deformity. Feet managed by the Ponseti method showed faster rates of decrease in Pirani score (improvement) as compared to feet treated by Kite's method. The between group analysis (Kite Ponseti) at three weeks was -1,4056 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -1.900 to -0.9103] showing a significantly difference between the methods at three weeks. The between group analysis (Kite Ponseti) at six weeks was -2.2302 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -2.9789 to -1.4815] showing a significantly difference between the methods at six weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ponseti management causes faster improvement in CTEV deformity using the Pirani scores than Kite management at three weeks and six weeks. It would therefore be more efficacious to use the Ponseti method of manipulation in the conservative management of CTEV. Issues of cost effectiveness will need to be researched further.</p>","PeriodicalId":74979,"journal":{"name":"The Central African journal of medicine","volume":"59 1-4","pages":"14-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Ponseti and Kite's method of treatment for congenital Talipes Equino using the Pirani scoring system.\",\"authors\":\"F Kaseke,&nbsp;T Mudawarima\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of the Ponseti manipulation versus the \\nKite's manipulation in the treatment of idiopathic Congenital Talipes Equino Varus (CTEV) as evaluated by \\nthe Pirani score.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An intervention study, prospective non randomized trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Hospital based study at three central hospitals namely Harare Central Hospital (HCH), Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals (PGH) and Chitungwiza Central Hospitals (CCH) in Zimbabwe. Subjects: 38 feet in 25 patients, 13 bilateral and 12 unilateral CTEV deformities in children less than one year of age and without prior manipulation or surgical treatment were purposively allocated to either Ponseti (20 feet) or Kite's method (18 feet) at three central hospitals. There were no dropouts.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Participants in two hospitals were managed using the Ponseti method and one hospital managed participants using the kite's method. Baseline Pirani scores were measured before the first treatment was done. Thereafter they were followed up weekly and analysis was done for three and six week outcomes using the Pirani score. Correction was measured by the difference between the baseline hindfoot, midfoot and total scores and the Pirani scores at three weeks and six weeks. Within group analysis of the data was done using a single student t - test and between groups analysis was done using the independent student t - test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both methods were effective in correcting CTEV deformity. Feet managed by the Ponseti method showed faster rates of decrease in Pirani score (improvement) as compared to feet treated by Kite's method. The between group analysis (Kite Ponseti) at three weeks was -1,4056 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -1.900 to -0.9103] showing a significantly difference between the methods at three weeks. The between group analysis (Kite Ponseti) at six weeks was -2.2302 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -2.9789 to -1.4815] showing a significantly difference between the methods at six weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ponseti management causes faster improvement in CTEV deformity using the Pirani scores than Kite management at three weeks and six weeks. It would therefore be more efficacious to use the Ponseti method of manipulation in the conservative management of CTEV. Issues of cost effectiveness will need to be researched further.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Central African journal of medicine\",\"volume\":\"59 1-4\",\"pages\":\"14-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Central African journal of medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Central African journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究比较Ponseti手法与Kite手法治疗特发性先天性马蹄内翻(CTEV)的有效性,并采用皮拉尼评分进行评估。设计:干预研究,前瞻性非随机试验。环境:在津巴布韦哈拉雷中心医院(HCH)、Parirenyatwa医院集团(PGH)和Chitungwiza中心医院(CCH)三家中心医院进行医院基础研究。受试者:25例患者38英尺,13例双侧和12例1岁以下儿童单侧CTEV畸形,未经事先操作或手术治疗,在三家中心医院有目的地分配到Ponseti(20英尺)或Kite(18英尺)方法。没有人中途退学。干预:两家医院的参与者采用Ponseti法管理,一家医院采用kite法管理。在第一次治疗完成前测量基线皮拉尼评分。此后,他们每周随访一次,并使用皮拉尼评分对三周和六周的结果进行分析。矫正是通过基线后足、中足和总分与皮拉尼评分在三周和六周的差异来衡量的。组内数据分析采用单个学生t检验,组间数据分析采用独立学生t检验。结果:两种方法均能有效矫正CTEV畸形。用Ponseti方法治疗的脚比用Kite方法治疗的脚在皮拉尼评分(改善)方面下降的速度更快。三周组间分析(Kite Ponseti)为-1,4056 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -1.900至-0.9103],显示三周时两种方法之间存在显著差异。6周时组间分析(Kite Ponseti)为-2.2302 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -2.9789至-1.4815],显示6周时两种方法之间存在显著差异。结论:在第3周和第6周,使用皮拉尼评分,Ponseti治疗比Kite治疗能更快地改善CTEV畸形。因此,采用Ponseti手法保守治疗CTEV更为有效。成本效益问题需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Ponseti and Kite's method of treatment for congenital Talipes Equino using the Pirani scoring system.

Objective: The study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of the Ponseti manipulation versus the Kite's manipulation in the treatment of idiopathic Congenital Talipes Equino Varus (CTEV) as evaluated by the Pirani score.

Design: An intervention study, prospective non randomized trial.

Setting: Hospital based study at three central hospitals namely Harare Central Hospital (HCH), Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals (PGH) and Chitungwiza Central Hospitals (CCH) in Zimbabwe. Subjects: 38 feet in 25 patients, 13 bilateral and 12 unilateral CTEV deformities in children less than one year of age and without prior manipulation or surgical treatment were purposively allocated to either Ponseti (20 feet) or Kite's method (18 feet) at three central hospitals. There were no dropouts.

Intervention: Participants in two hospitals were managed using the Ponseti method and one hospital managed participants using the kite's method. Baseline Pirani scores were measured before the first treatment was done. Thereafter they were followed up weekly and analysis was done for three and six week outcomes using the Pirani score. Correction was measured by the difference between the baseline hindfoot, midfoot and total scores and the Pirani scores at three weeks and six weeks. Within group analysis of the data was done using a single student t - test and between groups analysis was done using the independent student t - test.

Results: Both methods were effective in correcting CTEV deformity. Feet managed by the Ponseti method showed faster rates of decrease in Pirani score (improvement) as compared to feet treated by Kite's method. The between group analysis (Kite Ponseti) at three weeks was -1,4056 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -1.900 to -0.9103] showing a significantly difference between the methods at three weeks. The between group analysis (Kite Ponseti) at six weeks was -2.2302 (p = 0.0000) [CI = -2.9789 to -1.4815] showing a significantly difference between the methods at six weeks.

Conclusion: Ponseti management causes faster improvement in CTEV deformity using the Pirani scores than Kite management at three weeks and six weeks. It would therefore be more efficacious to use the Ponseti method of manipulation in the conservative management of CTEV. Issues of cost effectiveness will need to be researched further.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信