Introduction: Congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) commonly known as Clubfoot is a common birth defect that affects one in thousand live births. In past attempt at correction, based on forceful manipulations, resulted in incomplete corrections as well as iatrogenic deformities. With the advancement in understanding of kinematics and pathoanatomy of the CTEV, the Ponseti developed a novel method of correction, which has gained wide acceptance worldwide. Various modification have been done in terms of frequency of casting with evidence to suggest that accelerated frequency of cast changes has comparable outcomes to those of the conventional Ponseti method. Our study was undertaken to compare the results of Standard Ponseti method with that of the Accelerated Ponseti method in management of idiopathic CTEV.

Method & Material: Only idiopathic cases of both gender less than 1 year age were included in double-blind randomized prospective comparative study was conducted in the Department of Orthopaedics of Govt Medical College and Hospital, 55 patients with total 80 clubfeet, who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study.

Result: In our study of 55 patients with 40 idiopathic clubfeet in each group. The two groups were almost comparable with Pirani score of 4.69 in accelerated group and 4.88 in standard group respectively at the initiation of the casting. Mean duration of treatment from the first cast to tenotomy in accelerated ponseti group was 2.21 weeks and in standard ponseti group was 5.8 weeks respectively. Post cast Pirani score was 0.48 in accelerated group and 0.5 in standard group respectively. All the patient were followed for an average period of 15 month (12-18 month). No major complications were recorded in any group. The two study groups, the traditional and the accelerated Ponseti groups had nearly equivalent results with significant reduction in the correction time in the accelerated Ponseti group.

Conclusion: The clubfoot in developing countries has social stigma, the early and the promising result of the accelerated method of ponseti casting has a dramatic impact on both parents and the treating orthopaedician. The accelerated ponseti casting has remarkably reduced the overall duration of the treatment of Ponseti casting without any complication. It has reduced the overall economic burden on the poor patient by reducing the number of days of work lost as well as the total expenditure on the travel .

1. Dobbs MB, Gurnett CA. Update on clubfoot: etiology and treatment. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2009; 467(5):1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0734-9 PMID: 19224303.
2. Cosma DI, Vasilescu DE. Ponseti treatment for clubfoot in Romania: a 9-year single-centre experience. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B. 2014;23(6):512–6.
3. Dobbs MB, Morcuende JA, Gurnett CA, Ponseti IV. Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot: an historical review. Iowa Orthop J. 2000;20:59–64.
4. Kite JH. Some suggestions on the treatment of club foot by casts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963;45:406–412.
5. Kite JH. Principles involved in the treatment of congenital club-foot. 1939. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1847.
6. Lovell WW, Farley D. Treatment of congenital clubfoot. Ona J. 1979;6:453–456.
7. Morcuende JA, Dolan LA, Dietz FR, Ponseti IV. Radical reduction in the rate of extensive corrective surgery for clubfoot using the Ponseti method. Pediatrics 2004;113:376‐80.
8. Ponseti IV. Treatment of congenital club foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:448‐54.
9. Morcuende J, Abbasi D, Dolan L, Ponseti I. Results of an accelerated Punster protocol for clubfoot. J Pediatr Orthop 2005;25: 623-6.
10. Harnett P, Freeman R, Harrison WJ, Brown LC, Beckles V. An accelerated Ponseti versus the standard Ponseti method: a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone joint Surg [Br] 2011; 93(3): 404-408.
11. Sutcliffe A, Vaea K, Poulivaati J, Evans AM. ‘Fast casts’: Evidence based and clinical considerations for rapid Ponseti method. Foot and ankle online j 20013;6(9)2.
12. Hennessey TA (2012) Congenital clubfoot and the Ponseti method: a review of recent literature. Curr orthop pract 23(5):442–447
13. Cosma DI, Vasilescu DE (2014) Ponseti treatment for clubfoot in Romania: a 9-year single-centre experience. J Pediatr Orthop B 23(6):512–516. doi:10.1097/BPB.0000000000000081
14. Panjavi B, Sharafatvaziri A, Zargarbashi RH, Mehrpour S (2011) Use of the Ponseti method in the iranian population. J Pediatr Orthop 32:11–14
15. Scher DM, Feldman DS, van Bosse HJ, Sala DA, Lehman WB. Predicting the need for tenotomy in the Ponseti method for correction of clubfeet. J Pediatr Orthop 2004;24:349‐52.
16. Radler C, Mindler GT, Riedl K, Lipkowski C, Kranzl A (2013) Midterm results of the Ponseti method in the treatment of congenital clubfoot. Int Orthop 37:1827–1831
17. Porecha MM, Parmar DS, Chavda HR (2011) Mid-term results of Ponseti method for the treatment of congenital idiopathic club- foot—(a study of 67 clubfeet with mean five year follow-up). J OrthopSurg Res 6:3. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-6-3
18. Xu RJ. A modified Ponseti method for the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot: a preliminary report. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 2011; 31(3)317-319.
19. Cooper DM, Dietz FR. Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot: a thirty-year follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(10):1477–1489.
20. Laaveg S, Ponseti IV. Long-term results of treatment of congenital club foot. The Journal of Bone &Joint Surgery. 1980;62(1):23–31.
21. Sana Ullah, Muhammad Inam, Muhammad Arif. Club foot management by accelerated Ponseti technique. http://www.scopemed.org/?mno=170854 15 J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(3):404-8.

Dr Malik Naseer Ahmad