Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 17, 2025
Clinical-oriented Three-dimensional Gait Analysis Method for Evaluating Gait Disorder
Published on: March 4, 2018
Can gait analysis identify relapse in children with congenital talipes equinovarus? A systematic review &
Jenna Shepherd1, Darren Puttock2, Pip Divall3
1Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK; University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research, Academic Clinical Fellowship Integrated Clinical Academic Training Pathway, UK.
Background:
Congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) is a common congenital condition. Following initial treatment patients can relapse, requiring further intervention. Gait analysis evaluates kinematics throughout gait, which have been demonstrated to differ between CTEV children and typically developing children. However, it is unclear whether there is a difference in kinematic parameters between those with CTEV who relapse and those who do not. We therefore aimed to synthesise current evidence to answer this question and to determine whether gait analysis could play a role in relapse monitoring.
Methods:
Systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Emcare and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies comparing gait analysis in children < 18 years with CTEV with and without relapse. End points included Gait Deviation Index (GDI) score and individual kinematic parameters. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 BE to calculate pooled mean-difference in GDI score, walking-velocity and stride-length between groups.
Results:
Six studies were included (264 participants, 301 feet). Reduced dorsiflexion and increased forefoot adduction and supination were detected by gait analysis in relapse. Lower GDI scores were observed in relapse compared to non-relapse (pooled mean-difference 5.23,95 % CI 2.33-8.13,p < 0.001). No overall difference was detected in walking-velocity (pooled mean-difference 0.05 m/s,95 % CI 0-0.11,p = 0.06) or stride-length (pooled mean-difference 0.04 m,95 % CI 0.02-0.1,p = 0.18).
Conclusions:
Differences in GDI score and individual kinematic parameters, particularly of the forefoot, are detected between relapse and non-relapse through gait analysis, suggesting gait analysis may have a potential role to aid detection of relapse.
Level Of Evidence:
Level IV.
