4.4 Article

PREVALENCE AND ORTHOPEDIC MANAGEMENT OF FOOT AND ANKLE DEFORMITIES IN CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH DISEASE

Journal

MUSCLE & NERVE
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 255-259

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mus.25724

Keywords

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease; foot deformities; foot surgery; orthopedic complications; pes cavus; survey

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Neurological Diseases and Stroke and Office of Rare Diseases [U54NS065712]
  2. Medical Research Council [G0601943]
  3. National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
  4. NCATS
  5. NINDS
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [U54NS065712] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. National Institute for Health Research [CAT CL09-21] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. MRC [G0601943] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Foot deformities are frequent complications in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) patients, often requiring orthopedic surgery. However, there are no prospective, randomized studies on surgical management, and there is variation in the approaches among centers both within and between countries. Methods: In this study we assessed the frequency of foot deformities and surgery among patients recruited into the Inherited Neuropathies Consortium (INC). We also designed a survey addressed to orthopedic surgeons at INC centers to determine whether surgical approaches to orthopedic complications in CMT are variable. Results: Foot deformities were reported in 71% of CMT patients; 30% of the patients had surgery. Survey questions were answered by 16 surgeons working in different specialized centers. Most of the respondents were foot and ankle surgeons. There was marked variation in surgical management. Discussion: Our findings confirm that the approaches to orthopedic management of CMT are varied. We identify areas that require further research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available