BE SMART: Strategies for foot care and prevention of foot complications in patients with diabetes

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar L Morey-Vargas ◽  
Steven A Smith
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Reference Source ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Metabolic Evaluation ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers and lower extremity amputations are common complications of diabetes mellitus that are associated with substantial morbidity, loss of quality of life, disability, and a high social and economic burden. The implementation of strategies to prevent these complications is a key aspect of diabetes care. Objectives: The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the available evidence on preventive diabetic foot care. Study design: Literature review. Methods: Narrative review based on a thorough search of previous relevant studies, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines on diabetic foot care published in English. Results: We describe diabetic foot care strategies that can be categorized within defined domains for the purpose of helping clinicians to remember them. We use the mnemonic “BE SMART” ( Be aware of the risk factors, Educate patients and health providers, Structured clinical assessment, Metabolic evaluation and management, Assessment of Risk, and Team care) to organize these domains. Conclusion: Diabetic foot ulcers and lower extremity amputations are potentially preventable complications. Clinicians taking care of patients with diabetes should know, understand, and remember the multiple aspects of diabetic foot care. Clinical relevance This review can be used as a reference source for those interested in the care of diabetic foot. It highlights the importance of risk factor recognition, education, a structured clinical and metabolic evaluation, and also the importance of assigning patients a risk category that can help guiding multidisciplinary management efforts.

Differences in foot care practice between participants at risk for and with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in community

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 144-148
Author(s):  
Uswatun Hasanah ◽  
Saldy Yusuf ◽  
Rini Rachmawaty ◽  
Musdalifah Mukhtar ◽  
Serlina Sandi
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Foot Care

Plantar Pressures, Plantar Forces, and Their Influence on the Pathogenesis of Diabetic Foot Ulcers

2013 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 322-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérôme Patry ◽  
Richard Belley ◽  
Mario Côté ◽  
Marie-Ludivine Chateau-Degat
Keyword(s):  
Shear Stress ◽  
Mechanical Stress ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Plantar Pressures ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Full Text Review

Background: Clinical recommendations for the prevention and healing of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are somewhat clear. However, assessment and quantification of the mechanical stress responsible for DFU remain complex. Different pressure variables have been described in the literature to better understand plantar tissue stress exposure. This article reviews the role of pressure and shear forces in the pathogenesis of plantar DFU. Methods: We performed systematic searches of the PubMed and Embase databases, completed by a manual search of the selected studies. From 535 potentially relevant references, 70 studies were included in the full-text review. Results: Variables of plantar mechanical stress relate to vertical pressure, shear stress, and temporality of loading. At this time, in-shoe peak plantar pressure (PPP) is the only reliable variable that can be used to prevent DFU. Although it is a poor predictor of in-shoe PPP, barefoot PPP seems complementary and may be more suitable when evaluating patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy who seem noncompliant with footwear. An in-shoe PPP threshold value of 200 kPa has been suggested to prevent DFU. Other variables, such as peak pressure gradient and peak maximal subsurface shear stress and its depth, seem to be of additional utility. Conclusions: To better assess the at-risk foot and to prevent ulceration, the practitioner should integrate quantitative models of dynamic foot plantar pressures, such as in-shoe and barefoot PPPs, with the regular clinical screening examination. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate causality between other variables of mechanical stress and DFUs. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 103(4): 322–332, 2013)

scholarly journals Limb Salvage and Functional Outcomes following Free Tissue Transfer for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Diabetic Foot Ulcers

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (02) ◽  
pp. 117-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Lu ◽  
Michael DeFazio ◽  
Chrisovalantis Lakhiani ◽  
Michel Abboud ◽  
Morgan Penzler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Limb Salvage ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Free Tissue Transfer ◽  
Major Amputation ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Flap Survival ◽  
Foot Reconstruction

Background Recent evidence documenting high success rates following microvascular diabetic foot reconstruction has led to a paradigm shift in favor of more aggressive limb preservation. The primary aim of this study was to examine reconstructive and functional outcomes in patients who underwent free tissue transfer (FTT) for recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) at our tertiary referral center for advanced limb salvage. Methods Between June 2013 and June 2016, 29 patients underwent lower extremity FTT for diabetic foot reconstruction by the senior author (K.K.E.). In all cases, microsurgical reconstruction was offered as an alternative to major amputation for the management of recalcitrant DFUs. Overall rates of flap survival, limb salvage, and postoperative ambulation were evaluated. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) score was used to assess functional outcomes after surgery. Results Overall rates of flap success and lower limb salvage were 93 and 79%, respectively. Flap failure occurred in two patients with delayed microvascular compromise. Seven patients in this series ultimately required below-knee amputation secondary to recalcitrant infection (n = 5), intractable pain (n = 1), and limb ischemia (n = 1). The average interval between FTT and major amputation was 8 months (r, 0.2–15 months). Postoperative ambulation was confirmed in 25 patients (86%) after a mean final follow-up of 25 months (r, 10–48 months). The average LEFS score for all patients was 46 out of 80 points (r, 12–80 points), indicating the ability to ambulate in the community with some limitations. Conclusion FTT for the management of recalcitrant DFUs is associated with high rates of reconstructive success and postoperative ambulation. However, several patients will eventually require major amputation for reasons unrelated to ultimate flap survival. These data should be used to counsel patients regarding the risks, functional implications, and prognosis of microvascular diabetic foot reconstruction.

scholarly journals Biofilms in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Significance and Clinical Relevance

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1580
Author(s):  
Cassandra Pouget ◽  
Catherine Dunyach-Remy ◽  
Alix Pantel ◽  
Sophie Schuldiner ◽  
Albert Sotto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Biofilm Formation ◽  
Chronic Infection ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Bacterial Species ◽  
Limb Amputation ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

Foot infections are the main disabling complication in patients with diabetes mellitus. These infections can lead to lower-limb amputation, increasing mortality and decreasing the quality of life. Biofilm formation is an important pathophysiology step in diabetic foot ulcers (DFU)—it plays a main role in the disease progression and chronicity of the lesion, the development of antibiotic resistance, and makes wound healing difficult to treat. The main problem is the difficulty in distinguishing between infection and colonization in DFU. The bacteria present in DFU are organized into functionally equivalent pathogroups that allow for close interactions between the bacteria within the biofilm. Consequently, some bacterial species that alone would be considered non-pathogenic, or incapable of maintaining a chronic infection, could co-aggregate symbiotically in a pathogenic biofilm and act synergistically to cause a chronic infection. In this review, we discuss current knowledge on biofilm formation, its presence in DFU, how the diabetic environment affects biofilm formation and its regulation, and the clinical implications.

scholarly journals Prevention and treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

2017 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 104-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Zhang Ming Lim ◽  
Natasha Su Lynn Ng ◽  
Cecil Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Healthcare Provision ◽  
Foot Complications

The rising prevalence of diabetes estimated at 3.6 million people in the UK represents a major public health and socioeconomic burden to our National Health Service. Diabetes and its associated complications are of a growing concern. Diabetes-related foot complications have been identified as the single most common cause of morbidity among diabetic patients. The complicating factor of underlying peripheral vascular disease renders the majority of diabetic foot ulcers asymptomatic until latter evidence of non-healing ulcers become evident. Therefore, preventative strategies including annual diabetic foot screening and diabetic foot care interventions facilitated through a multidisciplinary team have been implemented to enable early identification of diabetic patients at high risk of diabetic foot complications. The National Diabetes Foot Care Audit reported significant variability and deficiencies of care throughout England and Wales, with emphasis on change in the structure of healthcare provision and commissioning, improvement of patient education and availability of healthcare access, and emphasis on preventative strategies to reduce morbidities and mortality of this debilitating disease. This review article aims to summarise major risk factors contributing to the development of diabetic foot ulcers. It also considers the key evidence-based strategies towards preventing diabetic foot ulcer. We discuss tools used in risk stratification and classifications of foot ulcer.

Outpatient Care and Morbidity Reduction in Diabetic Foot Ulcers Associated with Chronic Pressure Callus

2001 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 275-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald A. Sage ◽  
Julie Kate Webster ◽  
Susan Gross Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Outpatient Care ◽  
Traumatic Event ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Minor Trauma ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Foot Ulceration ◽  
Outpatient Visits ◽  
Foot Clinic

In a retrospective review of 233 cases of diabetic foot ulceration preceded by minor trauma, 192 ulcerations exhibited focal pressure keratosis as the preceding traumatic event. The frequency of outpatient visits and other foot care interventions were correlated with the occurrence and severity of ulceration. Patients seen more frequently in an outpatient foot clinic had less severe ulcers and were less likely to undergo surgical treatment than those with less frequent visits. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(6): 275-279, 2001)

The Physical Characteristics of Materials Used in the Manufacture of Orthoses for Patients with Diabetes

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1057-1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Paton ◽  
Ray B. Jones ◽  
Elizabeth Stenhouse ◽  
Graham Bruce
Keyword(s):  
Physical Properties ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Performance Indicator ◽  
Practical Method ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Properties Of Materials ◽  
Materials Used

Background: Neuropathic diabetic foot ulceration may be prevented if the mechanical stress transmitted to the plantar tissues can be modified. Orthotic therapy is one practical method commonly used to maintain tissue integrity. Orthotic design must consider the materials chosen for use in fabrication and profile of the device because both aspects influence the performance and durability of the device. Published research evaluating the physical properties of materials commonly used in the manufacture of orthoses for patients with diabetes is limited. This study investigated the physical properties of materials used to fabricate orthoses designed for the prevention of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Methods: Fifteen commonly used orthotic materials were selected for testing: four specifications of 6.4-mm Poron® (Rogers Corp., Gent, Belgium), 3.2-mm Poron®, three densities of 12-mm Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA), 12-mm low-density plastazote, two depths (6.4-mm, 3.2-mm) of Cleron™ (Algeo Ltd., Liverpool, UK), Professional Protective Technology (PPT), and MaxaCane (Algeo Ltd, Liverpool, UK). The density, resilience, stiffness, static coefficient of friction, durability, and compression set of each material were tested, ranked, and allocated a performance indicator score. Results: The most clinically desirable dampening materials tested were Poron® 96 (6-mm) and Poron® 4000 (6-mm). High density EVA (Algeo Ltd., Liverpool, UK) and Lunacell Nora® EVA (Freudenberg, Weinhein, Germany) possessed the properties most suitable to achieve motion control. The data present a simple and useful comparison and classification of the selected materials. Conclusions: Although this information should not be used as a single indicator for assessing the suitability of an orthotic material, the results provide clinically relevant information relating to the physical properties of orthotic materials commonly used in the prevention of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers.

scholarly journals Foot thermometry with mHeath-based supplementation to prevent diabetic foot ulcers: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lazo-Porras ◽  
Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz ◽  
Alvaro Taype-Rondan ◽  
Robert H. Gilman ◽  
German Malaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Foot Ulceration ◽  
History Of

Background: Novel approaches to reduce diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) in low- and middle-income countries are needed. Our objective was to compare incidence of DFUs in the thermometry plus mobile health (mHealth) reminders (intervention) vs. thermometry-only (control). Methods: We conducted a randomized trial enrolling adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus at risk of foot ulcers (risk groups 2 or 3) but without foot ulcers at the time of recruitment, and allocating them to control (instruction to use a liquid crystal-based foot thermometer daily) or intervention (same instruction supplemented with text and voice messages with reminders to use the device and messages to promote foot care) groups, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome was time to occurrence of DFU. A process evaluation was also conducted. Results: A total of 172 patients (63% women, mean age 61 years) were enrolled; 86 to each study group. More patients enrolled in the intervention arm had a history of previous DFU (66% vs. 48%). Follow-up for the primary endpoint was complete for 158 of 172 participants (92%). Adherence to ≥80% of daily temperature measurements was 87% (103 of 118) among the study participants who returned the logbook. DFU cumulative incidence was 24% (19 of 79) in the intervention arm and 11% (9 of 79) in the control arm. After adjusting for history of foot ulceration and study site, the hazard ratio (HR) for DFU was 1.44 (95% CI 0.65, 3.22). Conclusions: In our study, conducted in a low-income setting, the addition of mHealth to foot thermometry was not effective in reducing foot ulceration. Importantly, there was a higher rate of previous DFU in the intervention group, the adherence to thermometry was high, and the expected rates of DFU used in our sample size calculations were not met. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02373592 (27/02/2015)

scholarly journals Toward Machine-Learning-Based Decision Support in Diabetes Care: A Risk Stratification Study on Diabetic Foot Ulcer and Amputation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeinab Schäfer ◽  
Andreas Mathisen ◽  
Katrine Svendsen ◽  
Susanne Engberg ◽  
Trine Rolighed Thomsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Registry Data ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus is associated with serious complications, with foot ulcers and amputation of limbs among the most debilitating consequences of late diagnosis and treatment of foot ulcers. Thus, prediction and on-time treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are of great importance for improving and maintaining patients' quality of life and avoiding the consequent socio-economical burden of amputation. In this study, we use Danish national registry data to understand the risk factors of developing diabetic foot ulcers and amputation among patients with diabetes. We analyze the data of 246,705 patients with diabetes to assess some of the main risk factors for developing DFU/amputation. We study the socioeconomic information and past medical history of the patients. Factors, such as low family disposable income, cardiovascular disorders, peripheral artery, neuropathy, and chronic renal complications are among the important risk factors. Mental disorders and depression, albeit not as pronounced, still pose higher risks in comparison to the group of people without these complications. We further use machine learning techniques to assess the practical usefulness of such risk factors for predicting foot ulcers and amputation. Finally, we outline the limitations of working with registry data sources and explain potentials for combining additional public and private data sources in future applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the prediction of diabetic foot ulcers and amputation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document