Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 1:12 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-01-27 @ 4:29 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT02055495
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2014-08-08
First Post:
2014-02-03
Is Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Arthroereisis Versus Lateral Column Lengthening in the Treatment of Planovalgus Feet
Sponsor:
University of Utah
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Prospective Comparison of Subtalar Arthroereisis To Lateral Column Lengthening for Painful Flatfeet
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2014-08
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
There is no consensus on the surgical treatment of unremitting, painful flatfeet in children. Subtalar arthroereisis has gained notoriety although there is a paucity of literature on its biomechanical effects. The goal of the investigators was to compare a group treated with subtalar arthroereisis with another group undergoing lateral column calcaneal lengthening. The investigators hypothesis was that the results of arthroereisis would be equivalent to the more established method of calcaneal lengthening.
Detailed Description:
The purpose of this prospective, non-randomized study was to evaluate two different surgical treatments for symptomatic planovalgus feet: lateral column lengthening osteotomy and subtalar arthroereisis. The goal of the investigators was to compare the outcomes of these two surgeries and determine whether both treatments resulted in clinical improvement. This was accomplished through the use of pre- and post-operative kinematics, pedobarography, radiographic measurements, and validated outcome measures. The investigators were particularly interested in analyzing the kinematic changes to quantify the changes in the foot mobility and alignment during ambulation, as it has not been previously studied to our knowledge. The investigators hypothesis was that both procedures would show significant improvement and be equivalent in their results.
A prospective trial was conducted. The investigators enrolled fifteen patients (mean age 12.8y, 24 feet) with painful, planovalgus feet refractory to conservative treatment. Seven patients (13 feet) were enrolled in the arthroereisis group, and eight patients (11 feet) were enrolled in the calcaneal lengthening group. Though not specifically excluded, none of the enrolled patients had an underlying neuromuscular diagnosis. Kinematic motion analysis was performed on each patient prior to surgery and at one year of follow-up. Pedobarometry studies, radiographs, and validated outcome questionnaires (Oxford Ankle-Foot Questionnaire for Children) were also performed to evaluate the outcomes of both groups.
A prospective trial was conducted. The investigators enrolled fifteen patients (mean age 12.8y, 24 feet) with painful, planovalgus feet refractory to conservative treatment. Seven patients (13 feet) were enrolled in the arthroereisis group, and eight patients (11 feet) were enrolled in the calcaneal lengthening group. Though not specifically excluded, none of the enrolled patients had an underlying neuromuscular diagnosis. Kinematic motion analysis was performed on each patient prior to surgery and at one year of follow-up. Pedobarometry studies, radiographs, and validated outcome questionnaires (Oxford Ankle-Foot Questionnaire for Children) were also performed to evaluate the outcomes of both groups.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: