Objective: Various methods are applied in the clinical treatment of idiopathic clubfoot. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of different conservative treatments. Methods: Studies were pooled and odds ratio (ORs) with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated for evaluation of the results, relapses, and requirement for major surgery. Results: A final analysis of 1435 patients from 9 eligible studies was performed. The combined OR indicated that significantly more fair and poor results were achieved and that major surgery was required significantly more often when using non-Ponseti’s methods (OR = 3.33 and OR = 7.32, respectively), but no significant difference was detected in the occurrence of relapse (OR = 1.34). Pooled OR evaluation showed a significantly higher rate of fair and poor results, relapse, and requirement for major surgery when using Kite’s method than when using Ponseti’s method (OR = 3.93, OR = 2.53, and OR = 3.19, respectively), but no significant difference was detected between the French method and Ponseti’s method (OR = 3.01, OR = 0.72, and OR = 1.26, respectively). Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that Ponseti’s method is safe and efficient for conservative treatment of clubfoot and decreases the number of surgical interventions required. It is recommended as the first-choice conservative treatment for idiopathic clubfoot.

This study aimed to deepen the understanding of Osgood-Schlatter Disease (OSD) by characterizing MRI findings and comparing differences based on gender and