Thanks ladies! But still wondering why s work better.... :)

[Guest guest]

Thank you all for the suggestions on paying for the shoes - I've got

some ideas to run with now and I'm not so overwhelmed.

I'm still curious if someone can explain to me why the mitchells are

better than the markells? Do they just stay on better? Do they do

something to the foot that the markells don't? I think they look more

comfortable, but otherwise I'm not quite sure what the difference is.

THanks!

Darby

Livi 3/15/04 bi cf

[Guest guest]

I have used both on my daughter. The 's started to become a

popular choice for those of us with young babies that wouldn't stay

into the Markell's. Now Dr Ponseti recommends them because there are

less problems with blisters, sores and kicking them off. So over all I

guess they are better because of comfort and they stay on better.

However both shoes are used for the same function and that is to reduce

the risk of relapse. I had the 's and chose to go back to the

Markell's when my daughter was older just because they are easier for

me to get and my insurance accepts them better than the 's.

HTH,

[Guest guest]

Hi

The Markells stop or reduce the risk of relapse, whilst the s are feet

that may not be fully corrected, ie, an atypical clubfoot.

HTH

--- " " csbeav@...> wrote:

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:32:32 -0000

To: nosurgery4clubfoot

Subject: Re: Thanks ladies! But still

wondering why s work better....

I have used both on my daughter. The 's started to

become a

popular choice for those of us with young babies that wouldn't

stay

into the Markell's. Now Dr Ponseti recommends them because

there are

less problems with blisters, sores and kicking them off. So

over all I

guess they are better because of comfort and they stay on

better.

However both shoes are used for the same function and that is

to reduce

the risk of relapse. I had the 's and chose to go back

to the

Markell's when my daughter was older just because they are

easier for

me to get and my insurance accepts them better than the

's.

HTH,

[Guest guest]

The s are not for uncorrected feet... The problem with atypical feet is

that they are short and very chubby. It's impossible to get the heel down

without some serious blistering in the way-too-narrow Markells. The s

can help to correct the cavus deformity, but pleased don't think you can just

stick a pair of uncorrected feet in the s and get anything but negative

results...

Anneliese anna.jones@...> wrote:

Hi

The Markells stop or reduce the risk of relapse, whilst the s are feet

that may not be fully corrected, ie, an atypical clubfoot.

HTH

--- " " csbeav@...> wrote:

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:32:32 -0000

To: nosurgery4clubfoot

Subject: Re: Thanks ladies! But still

wondering why s work better....

I have used both on my daughter. The 's started to

become a

popular choice for those of us with young babies that wouldn't

stay

into the Markell's. Now Dr Ponseti recommends them because

there are

less problems with blisters, sores and kicking them off. So

over all I

guess they are better because of comfort and they stay on

better.

However both shoes are used for the same function and that is

to reduce

the risk of relapse. I had the 's and chose to go back

to the

Markell's when my daughter was older just because they are

easier for

me to get and my insurance accepts them better than the

's.

HTH,

[Guest guest]

Sorry if my post was confusing......write in haste, repent at leisure!

I am aware that the boots are not for uncorrected feet, but those that

are unable to reach a satisfactory level of dorsiflexion after the casting

proceedure and tenotomy have been performed.

Being in the U.K. there are no doctors trained by Dr Ponsetti himself but I had

the pleasure to speak to Ms Naomi Davies who is the authority on the ponsetti

treatment for Britain, as a working consultant, she often liases with Mr

Ponsetti and travels around Britain, giving lectures.

She explained that eventually she feels that the boot will be

univesally used and the Markells not. At the moment there are few in the U.K.

and those that are are specifically kept for those with an atypical clubfoot (I

think in itself pretty much a newly concieved concept) and therefore they can be

used on feet that perhaps the consultant/physio is not completly satisfied with

and yet DBB's are called for.

Hope this sorts out any confusion, that I caused originally.

--- faith slattery simone057@...> wrote:

Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:31:04 -0700 (PDT)

To: nosurgery4clubfoot

Subject: Re: Re: Thanks ladies! But still

wondering why s work better....

The s are not for uncorrected feet... The problem with

atypical feet is that they are short and very chubby. It's

impossible to get the heel down without some serious blistering

in the way-too-narrow Markells. The s can help to

correct the cavus deformity, but pleased don't think you can

just stick a pair of uncorrected feet in the s and get

anything but negative results...

Anneliese anna.jones@...> wrote:

Hi

The Markells stop or reduce the risk of relapse, whilst the

s are feet that may not be fully corrected, ie, an

atypical clubfoot.

HTH

--- " " csbeav@...> wrote:

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:32:32 -0000

To: nosurgery4clubfoot

Subject: Re: Thanks ladies! But still

wondering why s work better....

I have used both on my daughter. The 's started to

become a

popular choice for those of us with young babies that wouldn't

stay

into the Markell's. Now Dr Ponseti recommends them because

there are

less problems with blisters, sores and kicking them off. So

over all I

guess they are better because of comfort and they stay on

better.

However both shoes are used for the same function and that is

to reduce

the risk of relapse. I had the 's and chose to go back

to the

Markell's when my daughter was older just because they are

easier for

me to get and my insurance accepts them better than the

's.

HTH,