Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 5: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIssueWhat is the most practical method for detecting loss of protective foot sensation in theprimary care setting?RecommendationPeople with Type 2 diabetes should be routinely assessed with the 10g Semmes-Weinsteinmonofilament to detect loss of protective foot sensation.Evidence Statements• Loss of sensation to the 10g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament predicts foot ulcerationand amputationEvidence Level III-2• The 10 g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament is clinically reliableEvidence Level III-240
Background - Detection of Loss of Protective Foot SensationPeripheral neuropathy is common in people with Type 2 diabetes and was present in12.3% of people participating in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study atdiagnosis and in approximately 30% after 12 years (UKPDS 33, 1998). As reviewedin Section 1 peripheral neuropathy is a major risk factor for both foot ulceration andamputation. Therefore its clinical detection is important in identifying feet at risk ofulceration and is pivotal for effective strategies to prevent foot ulceration andamputation.One of the main objectives of the foot examination in the primary care setting is todetect a level of peripheral neuropathy which significantly increases the risk ofsustaining a foot wound, which is defined as ‘loss of protective sensation’. This is oneof the most important criteria in identifying people at high-risk of foot problems andis paramount in implementing a structured management plan to prevent lowerextremity complications (Armstrong et al, 1998). The detection of loss of protectivesensation is an important indicator to both the person with diabetes and the primarycarer that more frequent review and suitable preventative actions should be institutedand necessitates behavioural change in both the person with diabetes and the doctor.Several methods have been used to assess peripheral neuropathy in clinical studiesand include:• the 10g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament• vibration perception threshold (VPT) measured using a biothesiometer or 128Hztuning fork• calculation of a neuropathy score based on:− symptoms - the University of Texas Subjective Peripheral Neuropathyquestionnaire which relies on 4 questions of symptoms of neuropathy (Dyck,1988) or− clinical examination - the neuropathy disability score derived from acombination of testing for pain, temperature and vibration threshold with thepresence or absence of ankle reflexes (Young et al, 1993b)Symptoms alone are not considered reliable because a significant proportion of peoplewith diabetes who have neuropathy are asymptomatic (Young & Matthews, 1998).Similarly testing of ankle jerks alone is of little value since they are frequently absentin the elderly population, with or without diabetes (de Hens-van Putten et al, 1996)and has not been as successful as the more objective measures (eg VPT) in predictingulceration or amputation in people with diabetes.The primary care setting requires a simple, cheap and reliable means of identificationof the foot which has lost protective sensation (the insensate foot) and has led to theincreasing popularity of the 10g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. The monofilamentconsists of a pressure sensitive nylon filament attached to a rod. The monofilamentbuckles at a reproducible pressure of 10g force which has been identified as the levelof sensation protective against foot ulceration, initially in leprosy (Birke & Sims,1986; Halar et al, 1987). The loss of this protective sensation at one site is taken asindicating an abnormal monofilament test. The test must be performed in areas free ofcallus which may impair the ability to feel the monofilament.41
Page 1: National Evidence Based Guidelinesf
Page 4: Research OfficersMs Linda SmithPodi
Page 7 and 8: 2.2 Issues for Foot Problems in Typ
Page 9: • Aim to achieve the best possibl
Page 12 and 13: Background - Peripheral Neuropathy
Page 14 and 15: proportion of subjects with a durat
Page 16 and 17: and an OR 1.1-7.8. This study also
Page 18 and 19: Summary - Peripheral Neuropathy as
Page 20 and 21: Section 2: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
Page 22 and 23: predicting risk of amputation, 2.9
Page 24 and 25: Summary - Peripheral Vascular Disea
Page 28 and 29: Evidence - Foot Deformity and Previ
Page 30 and 31: people with both LJM and neuropathy
Page 32 and 33: Summary - Foot Deformity and Previo
Page 36 and 37: Also in the Seattle study, 67 peopl
Page 38 and 39: Summary - Ulcer as a Risk Factor fo
Page 42 and 43: The other frequently reported metho
Page 44 and 45: side; and 82% having the same resul
Page 46 and 47: Evidence Table: Section 5Detection
Page 48 and 49: Background - Clinical Detection of
Page 50 and 51: pulse was bilaterally absent in 1.8
Page 52 and 53: Evidence Table: Section 6AuthorClin
Page 54 and 55: Background - Frequency of Foot Exam
Page 56 and 57: Summary - Frequency of Foot Examina
Page 60 and 61: Behaviour assessment scores, measur
Page 62 and 63: Mazzuca et al (1986) studies 532 pe
Page 64 and 65: with before the programme, after 1-
Page 66 and 67: Evidence Table: Section 8AuthorEffe
Page 68 and 69: Background - Glycaemic Control and
Page 70 and 71: In a previous Japanese randomised s
Page 72 and 73: Evidence Table: Section 9AuthorGlyc
Page 74 and 75: Background - Footwear to Reduce Ulc
Page 76 and 77: period. In addition people without
Page 78 and 79: Comparisons of in-shoe foot pressur
Page 80 and 81: The rate of plantar callus formatio
Page 82 and 83: Evidence Table: Section 10AuthorFoo
Page 84 and 85: Background - Foot Clinics and Multi
Page 86 and 87: A prospective non randomised contro
Page 88 and 89: Summary - Foot Clinics and Multi-di
Page 90 and 91:
Section 12: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
Page 92 and 93:
and/or osteomyelitis; III - fore-fo
Page 94 and 95:
Summary - Economic consequences•
Page 96 and 97:
Section 13: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
Page 98 and 99:
Some ethnic groups are associated w
Page 100 and 101:
Evidence Table: Section 13AuthorSoc
Page 102 and 103:
Calle-Pascual AL, Duran A, Diaz A,
Page 104 and 105:
Jannink MJ, van Dijk H, de Vries J,
Page 106 and 107:
Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The 14-
Page 108 and 109:
Soulier SM, Godsey C, Asay ED, Perr
Page 110 and 111:
Diabetes Foot Problems: General Ref
Page 112 and 113:
McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, St
Page 114 and 115:
Diabetes Foot Problems: Other Refer
Page 116 and 117:
Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS
Page 118 and 119:
Garbalosa JC, Cavanagh PR, Wu G, Ul
Page 120 and 121:
Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich
Page 122 and 123:
Payne C. Regional variations of dia
Page 124 and 125:
Tovi J, Svanborg E, Nilsson BY, Eng
Page 126 and 127:
Criteria used to determine the suit
Page 128 and 129:
QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
show all

Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?