Conventional Versus Accelerated Ponseti in the Management of Cases of Idiopathic Clubfoot: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the accelerated and standard Ponseti method for clubfoot pathology by constructing a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized comparative studies. A systematic search was conducted to identify the relevant studies through PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane depending on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The keywords used included "accelerated" AND "standard" AND "Ponseti" AND "clubfoot" AND "Congenital Talipes Equinovarus" AND "CTEV" AND "prospective comparative design" AND "randomized trial."We conducted this analysis among 13 studies that met the criteria adopted in this review where eight studies were prospective comparative studies, and five studies were randomized prospective comparative studies which were published in the period between 2015 and 2022. Statistically, accelerated Ponseti showed superior impact over standard Ponseti considering the duration of treatment (22.53 days vs. 40.61 days, p<0.001). No significant difference was reported between the two methods considering final Pirani score (0.64 vs. 0.56, p=0.194), number of casts (5.23 vs. 5.25, p=0.425), rate of tenotomy (66.2% vs. 63.1%, OR=1.246, 95% CI: 0.86-1.80, p=0.245), relapse rate (9.51% vs. 8.54%, OR=1.126, 95% CI: 0.68-1.86, p=0.642) and complication rate (14.4% vs. 13.1%, OR=1.130, 95% CI: 0.58-2.19, p=0.717). We concluded that the accelerated Ponseti method could achieve comparable efficacy to the standard method in terms of post -procedure Pirani score, tenotomy rate, relapse rate, complications rate, and number of casts needed by the patients with advantage of requiring shorter duration of treatment which is associated with more patient's compliance.