Statistical methods, 12 Summary of Papers, 13 Paper I: Incidence of congenital clubfoot in Sweden, 13 Paper II: Ultrasound anatomy in the normal neonatal and infant foot: an introduction to ultrasound assessment of foot deformities, 13 Paper III: No association between residual forefoot adduction and the position of the navicular in clubfeet treated by posterior release, 14 Paper IV: Correction of persistent clubfoot deformities with the Ilizarov external fixator, 14 Paper V: Patient ReportedOutcome at 62-67 years of age in 83 patients treated for congenital clubfoot, 15 Discussion, 17 Conclusions, 20 Future perspectives, 21 Acknowledgements, 22 References, 23 Epidemiology and pathogenesis In a regular healthcare system, where the vast majority of children are born in hospitals, the congenital clubfoot (CTEV, Congenital talipes equinovarus) diagnosis is easily set at birth by health professionals. The probability of overlooking, or mistaking, this disorder for another, is very small; therefore, practically all patients with congenital clubfoot are expected to be identified [1, 2]. From this viewpoint, where newborn children are diagnosed with congenital clubfoot, further steps are needed, including proper coding, registration, and reporting to a database before estimation of incidence is reliable. Under-and overestimation of the number of children with a preliminary diagnosis of congenital clubfoot may still occur. Overestimation is based on two forms of clubfoot: mild forms of fully reducible feet with no need for regular treatment; and complex forms with additional malformations of neurological origin. There is always an underestimation of the true incidence, due to under-reporting and missing cases, as reported by Severin (1956) and Wallander et al (2006) [3, 4].The etiology of clubfoot remains unknown and is controversial, and numerous theories on causative factors are proposed. These include: nerve lesion [5]; muscular abnormality [6]; vascular defect [7], neuromuscular defect [8]; regional growth disturbance [9, 10]; intrauterine extrinsic pressure induction, either primary [11] or secondary to early amniocentesis [12-14]; a genetic component, either alone [15] or with a geneenvironment interaction [16]; connected to maternal smoking [16,17]; seasonal variation [2,18,19] (although this hypothesis has been rejected by others [20,21]). Anatomic observations [6] conclude the findings are of primary cause, although it may not be possible to distinguish primary from secondary abnormalities [9].Although long held proposals of intra-uterine compression as a causative factor is unsubstantiated , Wynne-Davies still claims [11] "a feeling remains that mechanical pressure may be of some significance"(p 446). Evidence for this theory is criticised [9] for being anecdotal. Kavashima and Uhthoff [10] claim interruption in the development of a normal foot during the ninth week of gestation might be responsible for the deformity. This hypothesis of a regional growth disturbance [9, 10] is supported by two observations. F...