Functional physiotherapy method results for the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot

Table 1 Comparisons at baseline of Robert Debré and Saint Vincent de Paul groups

	Robert Debré group	Saint Vincent de Paul group	P value3
Number of feet	31	36	0.747
Number of feet by gender, boys/girls	23/8	25/11	0.667
Number of laterality affected feet, R/L	16/15	20/16	0.809
Number of moderate feet1, %	10 (32)	10 (28)	0.782
Number of severe feet1, %	12 (39)	17 (47)	0.782
Number of very severe feet1, %	9 (29)	9 (25)	0.782
Age at start of treatment in d2	14 (2-30)	10 (1-45)	0.050

¹According to the classification of Dimeglio;

²Median (range);

³Estimated with χ² test. R: Right; L: Left.

Table 2 Comparison by category at 8 mo with respect to baseline¹

Group	Severity at baseline, n (%)	Severity 8 mo after, n (%)
		Normal	Benign	Moderate
	Moderate 10 (32)	4 (13)	6 (19)	0 (0)
Robert Debré	Severe 12 (39)	0 (0)	2 (7)	10 (32)
	Very severe 9 (29)	0 (0)	0 (0)	9 (29)
	Moderate 10 (28)	8 (22)	2 (6)	0 (0)
Saint Vincent de Paul	Severe 17 (47)	0 (0)	17 (47)	0 (0)
	Very severe 9 (25)	0 (0)	4 (11)	5 (14)

¹P = 0.001 estimated with χ² test (Extended method).

Table 3 Comparison by category at two years of age to achieve a plantigrade foot

Group	Severity at baseline, n (%)
		Very good2	Good3	Fair4	Poor5
	Moderate 10 (32)	6 (20)	2 (6)	2 (6)	0 (0)
Robert Debré	Severe 12 (39)	0 (0)	0 (0)	12 (39)	0 (0)
	Very severe 9 (29)	0 (0)	0 (0)	9 (29)	0 (0)
	Moderate 10 (28)	10 (28)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Saint Vincent de Paul	Severe 17 (47)	11 (30)	6 (17)	0 (0)	0 (0)
	Very severe 9 (25)	0 (0)	0 (0)	9 (25)	0 (0)

¹P < 0.001 compared with χ² test (Extended method);

²Only physiotherapy;

³Heel-cord tenotomy;

⁴Limited posterior release;

⁵Complete release.

Table 4 Relapse rates

Group	Relapses Yes	Relapses No	Total
Saint Vincent de Paul	5	31	36
Robert Debré	5	26	31
Total	10	31	67

OR = 1.20. OR estimated with OR test. OR: Odds ratio.