Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    

Users Online: 1605 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

 Table of Contents    
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 45  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 188
Comparison of Ponseti and Kite's method of treatment for idiopathic clubfoot

Sancheti Institute for Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Shivaji Nagar, Pune; Indian Orthopaedic Research Group, Thane, Maharashtra, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication26-Feb-2011

How to cite this article:
Shyam AK. Comparison of Ponseti and Kite's method of treatment for idiopathic clubfoot. Indian J Orthop 2011;45:188

How to cite this URL:
Shyam AK. Comparison of Ponseti and Kite's method of treatment for idiopathic clubfoot. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2011 [cited 2020 Jan 27];45:188. Available from:

I have with interest read the article by Rijal et al. entitled "Comparison of Ponseti and Kite's method of treatment for idiopathic clubfoot" recently published in Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. [1]

Following are my concerns regarding the article:

  1. The Ponseti method is currently the most accepted method of conservatively treating the idiopathic clubfeet. Kites method was a rebending the bend to straighten the curve while Ponseti's method is based on well-studied pathoanatomy. As mentioned by the authors themselves, the success rate of Kite is maximum 58% while that of Ponseti is 78-98%. [2],[3],[4] The Kite's method has been shown to be lengthy and 50-75% needed soft tissue release. [5] Reviews on the subject now do not even take into account Kite's method as an acceptable treatment for clubfoot. [6],[7] With this background, I wish to enquire the need and ethics of subjecting 30 feet's in children to Kite's method. Is there really a need for doing such a randomized trial?
  2. The authors quote that they could find only one randomized trial comparing the Ponseti with Kite's method; [8] however, this study was published in 2008 while the authors have begun their study in 2005. Only studies available before the time of starting the study can justify the rationale of the study. Since the clinical use of ponseti technique is well established, there seems no justification to subject children to Kite's manipulation for the sake of comparing a scoring system or quantifying time duration for correction.
  3. The authors claim this to be a randomized controlled trial, which according to the IJO policy should be according to the CONSORT guidelines. I find few things missing:
    1. No mention of sample size calculation
    2. The method of allocation concealment used
    3. No mention of whether a well-informed consent was taken from the parents of the children randomized for the study
    4. If any losses to follow-up, drop-outs, or failure of treatment, etc.
    5. No mention of the end-points of the study
  4. The results have been analyzed in subgroups. However according to me, the study is using two different kinds of designs, a randomized control trial to allocate the intervention and matched pair designs to analyze the results. This in itself is conflicting. If we have randomized correctly, there is no need for any such subgroup-matched pair analysis, which will drastically increase the alpha error.
  5. The authors mention that "The sample size is adequate as even in subgroups the differences have attained statistical significance." Such posthoc assumptions on sample size in a RCT cannot be done and has no meaning.
  6. Presentation of standard error and confidence interval statistics rather than P value would have been more informative. The best would have been to plan this study as a randomized controlled superiority trial supporting Ponseti method over Kite's method with predefined end-points and minimal clinically significant difference in the Pirani score.

   References Top

1.Rijal R, Shrestha BP, Singh GK, Singh M, Nepal P, Khanal GP, et al. Comparison of Ponseti and Kite's method of treatment for idiopathic clubfoot. Indian J Orthop 2010;44:202-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Herzenberg JE, Radler C, Bor N. Ponseti versus Kite methods of casting for idiopathic clubfoot. J Pediatr Orthop 2002;22:517-21.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Cooper DM, Dietz FR. Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot: A thirty-year follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:1477-89.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.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.  Back to cited text no. 4
5.Dobbs MB, Gurnett CA. Update on clubfoot: Etiology and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:1146-53.  Back to cited text no. 5
6.Siapkara A, Duncan R. Congenital talipes equinovarus: A review of current management. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:995-1000.  Back to cited text no. 6
7.Noonan KJ, Richards BS. Nonsurgical management of idiopathic clubfoot. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003;11:392-402.  Back to cited text no. 7
8.Sud A, Tiwari A, Sharma D, Kapoor S. Ponseti's vs Kite's method in the treatment of clubfoot: A prospective randomized study. Int Orthop 2008;32:409-13.  Back to cited text no. 8

Correspondence Address:
Ashok K Shyam
Sancheti Institute for Oorthopaedics and Rehbailitation, 16 Shivaji Nagar, Pune
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.77143

Rights and Permissions

This article has been cited by
1 Kite versus Ponseti Method in the Treatment of 235 Feet With Idiopathic Clubfoot
Zoltan Derzsi,Örs Nagy,Horea Gozar,Simona Gurzu,Tudor Sorin Pop
Medicine. 2015; 94(33): e1379
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded174    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal