Acute Clinical Presentation of Charcot Arthropathy
Acute Clinical Presentation of Charcot Arthropathy Acute Clinical Presentation of Charcot Arthropathy
Case #3: Radiographic Findings “Questionable soft tissue swelling over dorsum of foot..” “No signs of fractures, dislocations, no evidence of osteomyelitis or a bone destructive process.” “Severe peripheral vascular disease beyond the patient’s age strongly consistent c diabetes.” Bottom line: “By plain film evidence, there is no evidence for developing neurovascular joint disease at this point. MRI is more sensitive. If warranted, this should be considered.”
Case #3: Rx PT called Dr. Mirmiran, podiatrist, to discuss case. Asked podiatrist about her interpretation of “Stage 0 Charcot foot” compared c this pt and what Rx she would recommend. Pt referred to podiatry by PCP after discussion c PT and podiatrist. Short leg cast was placed on L leg by podiatrist. Initially NWB c crutches, then pt given walking shoe for use c cast and crutches. Cast changed by podiatrist q 2 weeks while she took serial radiographs and also monitored redness and edema of L foot.
- Page 1 and 2: Clinical Presentation of Acute Char
- Page 3 and 4: disease Etiology of Charcot joint d
- Page 5 and 6: Clinical signs and symptoms of Char
- Page 7 and 8: Joints affected 1)Tarsometatarsal j
- Page 9 and 10: ‘Normal’ foot radiographs: Late
- Page 11 and 12: Charcot foot: Loss of arch and acqu
- Page 13: These are the X-ray X films of the
- Page 18 and 19: Charcot treatment plan • Recogniz
- Page 20 and 21: Cam/fracture walker
- Page 22 and 23: CROW (Charcot Restraint Orthotic Wa
- Page 24 and 25: Selected ACL cases November 2006 th
- Page 26 and 27: Case #1 Initial films: Ankle and ch
- Page 28 and 29: Case #1: AP View: Healing 2 nd meta
- Page 30 and 31: Case #1: Lateral view: TMT joint de
- Page 32 and 33: Case #2 72 y/o female already going
- Page 34 and 35: Case #2: Lateral view of L foot.
- Page 36 and 37: Case#2 R foot AP and Oblique views
- Page 38 and 39: Case #2: Radiographic findings R fo
- Page 40 and 41: Case #3 46 y/o male already under c
- Page 42 and 43: Case #3: L foot Oblique view
- Page 46 and 47: Case #4 Case #4 61 y/o male had bee
- Page 48 and 49: Case #4: R ankle films
- Page 50 and 51: Case #4: R foot AP view
- Page 52 and 53: Case #4 Radiographic findings “Di
- Page 54: Case #5 60 y/o female c PMH of bein
- Page 58 and 59: Case #5 Pt called PT 6 days prior t
- Page 60 and 61: Case #5: PT evaluation Girth measur
- Page 62 and 63: Case #5: R foot lateral radiograph
- Page 64 and 65: Case #5: R ankle radiographs
- Page 66 and 67: Case #5: Ankle radiographic finding
- Page 68 and 69: Case #5: external fixation
- Page 70 and 71: Case #5: Rx Infection in R leg desp
- Page 72 and 73: Case #6: L foot AP/oblique views
- Page 74 and 75: Case #6: R foot AP/oblique views
- Page 76 and 77: Case #6: Radiographic findings “M
- Page 78 and 79: Clinical signs and symptoms of Char
- Page 80: Treatment progression (podiatry)
Case #3: Radiographic Findings<br />
“Questionable s<strong>of</strong>t tissue swelling over dorsum <strong>of</strong> foot..”<br />
“No signs <strong>of</strong> fractures, dislocations, no evidence <strong>of</strong> osteomyelitis or a bone<br />
destructive process.”<br />
“Severe peripheral vascular disease beyond the patient’s age strongly<br />
consistent c diabetes.”<br />
Bottom line: “By plain film evidence, there is no evidence for developing<br />
neurovascular joint disease at this point. MRI is more sensitive. If<br />
warranted, this should be considered.”
Change language