Table 4.

Study results.

Title	Author	Year	Type of Study	Sample (N)	Duration of Study	Results
Treatment of idiopathic clubfoot using the Ponseti method	Changulani et al. [4]	2006	Randomized controlled trial	66 patients (100 clubfoot)	2 years	The use of the Ponseti method, which is a simple and effective method to treat congenital idiopathic clubfoot, led to the prevention of surgery in up to 89% of cases.
Ponseti vs. Kite’s method in the treatment of clubfoot—a prospective randomised study	Sud et al. [10]	2008	Randomized controlled trial	45 patients (67 clubfoot)	1 year	It was found that the correction of clubfoot was significantly improved with the Ponseti method (with fewer days and fewer casts) as compared to the Kite method.
Ponseti Method Does Age at the Beginning of Treatment Make a Difference?	Alves et al. [11]	2009	Randomized controlled trial	68 patients (102 clubfoot)	2 years	All feet (100%) were initially corrected and no feet required extensive surgery, regardless of age, at start of treatment. There were no differences between Groups I and II in the number of casts, tenotomies, success in terms of rate of initial correction, recurrence rate and tibial transfer rate previous. The rate of extensive surgery avoidance when using the Ponseti method was 100% in Groups I and II; relapses occurred in 8% of feet in young and older children.
Comparison of Ponseti versus Surgical treatment for idiopathic clubfoot	Zwick et al. [12]	2009	Randomized controlled trial	19 patients (28 clubfoot)	3 years and a half	In the group for which the Ponseti method was performed, better results were obtained; no patient had foot pain or plantigrade feet.
Early results of the Ponseti technique for a clubfoot clinic in South Africa	Firth et al. [14]	2009	Randomized controlled trial	70 patients (106 clubfoot)	6 years	The Ponseti technique led to good results for clubfoot, but no significant differences were found between the group that received previous treatment and the group that did not.
Conservative management of idiopathic clubfoot: Kite versus Ponseti method	Sanghvi y Mittal [1]	2009	Randomized controlled trial	42 patients (64 clubfoot)	3 years	The results obtained with the Kite and Ponseti methods were similar (79% vs. 87%). With the Ponseti method, the number of casts was significantly lower, as well as the time needed to achieve correction, and a greater maximum ankle dorsiflexion was obtained.
Early results of treatment for congenital clubfoot using the Ponseti method	Matuszewski et al. [9]	2011	Randomized controlled trial	35 patients (47 clubfoot)	4 years	All patients achieved satisfactory results, and there have not been any known recurrences.
Treatment of idiopathic congenital clubfoot using the Ponseti method: ten years of experience	Lara et al. [8]	2013	Randomized controlled trial	155 patients (229 clubfoot)	10 years	The Ponseti method was used in both groups and correction was achieved, but in the group with younger patients, the results were more satisfactory and fewer casts were used.
Comparison of cast materials for the treatment of congenital idiopathic clubfoot using the Ponseti method: a prospective randomized controlled trial	Hui et al. [3]	2014	Randomized controlled trial	30 patients (44 clubfoot)	2 years and a half	When performing the Ponseti method, there were no significant differences when using different materials in the mean number of casts needed to correct clubfoot.
Treatment of clubfoot with Ponseti method using semirigid synthetic softcast	Aydin et al. [13]	2015	Randomized controlled trial	196 patients (249 clubfoot)	1 year	There were no significant differences in the results of the Ponseti method when using the classical material (POP) or using a semirigid synthetic soft cast.
Functional and clinical results achieved in congenital clubfoot patients treated by Ponseti’s technique	Jaqueto et al. [5]	2016	Randomized controlled trial	31 patients (51 clubfoot)	5 years and a half	The Ponseti method offered functional and clinical efficacy in patients with a success rate of 90.2% and an improvement in the Pirani classification values.
Comparison of the Ponseti method versus early tibialis anterior tendon transfer for idiopathic clubfoot: A prospective randomized study	Gintautiene et al. [15]	2016	Randomized controlled trial	39 patients (55 clubfoot)	2 years	An early transfer of the tibialis anterior tendon allowed a reduction in the duration of the use of the orthosis and led to the same results as with the Ponseti method. However, a less significant difference in dorsiflexion of the foot was observed in those patients who underwent a tibialis anterior tendon transfer.
Treatment of congenital clubfoot using Ponseti method	Chueire et al. [2]	2016	Randomized controlled trial	26 patients (39 clubfoot)	4 years	The Ponseti method offered good clubfoot results with fewer soft tissue injuries.
Evaluation of Kite and Ponseti methods in the treatment of idiopathic congenital clubfoot	García et al. [7]	2018	Randomized controlled trial	100 patients (127 clubfoot)	1 year and 4 months	It was shown that the efficacy of the treatment with the Ponseti method was higher than with the Kite method.
Results of a standard versus an accelerated Ponseti protocol for clubfoot: A prospective randomized study	Islam et al. [6]	2020	Randomized controlled trial	100 patients (158 clubfoot)	1 year	The data suggest that performing the accelerated Ponseti technique, that is, changing casts twice a week, reduces immobilization time without affecting the final results and is as safe and effective as the traditional Ponseti method.