The Ponseti method is the gold standard treatment for congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV), with the British Consensus Statement providing a benchmark for standard of care. Meeting these standards and providing expert care while maintaining geographical accessibility can pose a service delivery challenge. A novel ‘Hub and Spoke’ Shared Care model was initiated to deliver Ponseti treatment for CTEV, while addressing standard of care and resource allocation. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility and outcomes of the corrective phase of Ponseti service delivery using this model. Patients with idiopathic CTEV were seen in their local hospitals (‘Spokes’) for initial diagnosis and casting, followed by referral to the tertiary hospital (‘Hub’) for tenotomy. Non-idiopathic CTEV was managed solely by the Hub. Primary and secondary outcomes were achieving primary correction, and complication rates resulting in early transfer to the Hub, respectively. Consecutive data were prospectively collected and compared between patients allocated to Hub or Spokes. Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or chi-squared tests were used for analysis (alpha-priori = 0.05, two-tailed significance).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to gain an agreement on the management of idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) up to walking age in order to provide a benchmark for practitioners and guide consistent, high-quality care for children with CTEV. The consensus process followed an established Delphi approach with a predetermined degree of agreement. The process included the following steps: establishing a steering group; steering group meetings, generating statements, and checking them against the literature; a two-round Delphi survey; and final consensus meeting. The steering group members and Delphi survey participants were all British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) members. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of the Delphi survey results. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation checklist was followed for reporting of the results.Aims
Methods
To identify the minimum set of outcomes that should be collected in clinical practice and reported in research related to the care of children with idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV). A list of outcome measurement tools (OMTs) was obtained from the literature through a systematic review. Further outcomes were collected from patients and families through a questionnaire and interview process. The combined list, as well as the appropriate follow-up timepoint, was rated for importance in a two-round Delphi process that included an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, patients, and families. Outcomes that reached no consensus during the Delphi process were further discussed and scored for inclusion/exclusion in a final consensus meeting involving international stakeholder representatives of practitioners, families, and patient charities.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families.Aims
Methods
This study aims to define a set of core outcomes (COS) to allow consistent reporting in order to compare results and assist in treatment decisions for idiopathic clubfoot. A list of outcomes will be obtained in a three-stage process from the literature and from key stakeholders (patients, parents, surgeons, and healthcare professionals). Important outcomes for patients and parents will be collected from a group of children with idiopathic clubfoot and their parents through questionnaires and interviews. The outcomes identified during this process will be combined with the list of outcomes previously obtained from a systematic review, with each outcome assigned to one of the five core areas defined by the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT). This stage will be followed by a two round Delphi survey aimed at key stakeholders in the management of idiopathic clubfoot. The final outcomes list obtained will then be discussed in a consensus meeting of representative key stakeholders.Aims
Methods
Open reduction in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is regularly performed despite screening programmes, due to failure of treatment or late presentation. A protocol for open reduction of DDH has been refined through collaboration between surgical, anaesthetic, and nursing teams to allow same day discharge. The objective of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of performing open reduction of DDH as a day case. A prospectively collected departmental database was visited. All consecutive surgical cases of DDH between June 2015 and March 2020 were collected. Closed reductions, bilateral cases, cases requiring corrective osteotomy, and children with comorbidities were excluded. Data collected included demographics, safety outcome measures (blood loss, complications, readmission, reduction confirmation), and feasibility for discharge according to the Face Legs Activity Cry Consolidability (FLACC) pain scale. A satisfaction questionnaire was filled by the carers. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.Aims
Methods
To analyze outcomes reported in studies of Ponseti correction of idiopathic clubfoot. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify a list of outcomes and outcome tools reported in the literature. A total of 865 studies were screened following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and 124 trials were included in the analysis. Data extraction was completed by two researchers for each trial. Each outcome tool was assigned to one of the five core areas defined by the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Bias assessment was not deemed necessary for the purpose of this paper.Aims
Methods
