Diabetic foot screening

Revision as of 14:09, 30 September 2021 by Sam Norris (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Diabetic foot Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Diabetic foot from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

X Ray

CT

MRI

Echocardiography or Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Diabetic foot screening On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Diabetic foot screening

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Diabetic foot screening

CDC on Diabetic foot screening

Diabetic foot screening in the news

Blogs on Diabetic foot screening

Directions to Hospitals Treating Diabetic foot

Risk calculators and risk factors for Diabetic foot screening

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Anahita Deylamsalehi, M.D.[2]

Overview

The main focus of diabetic foot screening should be on peripheral neuropathy detection, since foot ulcer development is rare in the absence of neuropathy. In addition to examining the peripheral neuropathy, physicians should search for any evidence of skin integrity loss, anatomical deformities, nail changes and distal pulses when they screen diabetic patients. It is recommended to perform a careful foot examination at least annually in diabetic patients who are over the age of 15. Nevertheless, there are some risk stratification systems that can provide a better understanding of how often foot screening should be performed based on each patient. These systems utilize factors such as peripheral arterial disease, impaired protective sensation of foot, anatomical deformities, history of previous foot ulcer or amputation and presence of other concurrent disorders. One of the IWGDF guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetic foot recommends a foot screening assessment sheet for physical examination in each screening. Physicians should educate patients to perform self foot examinations more often. There are diagnostic tools in order to perform a better screening such as Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, tuning fork and biothesiometer.

Screening


Characteristics Score Risk of ulcer development Recommended screening frequency
Intact protective sensation of foot
Absent of peripheral artery disease
0 Very low Annually
Impaired protective sensation of foot
OR
Peripheral artery disease
1 Low Every 6‐12 months
Impaired protective sensation of foot AND peripheral artery disease
OR
Impaired protective sensation of foot AND foot deformity
OR
Peripheral artery disease AND foot deformity
2 Moderate Every 3‐6 months
Impaired protective sensation of foot OR peripheral artery disease
AND at least one of the following:
Previous history of a foot ulcer
Previous history of amputation of a lower extremity
End‐stage renal disease
3 High Every 1‐3 months



Search for anatomical deformities or bony prominences
Check the skin integrity
Monofilament test
Tuning fork test
Cotton wool sensation test
Search for any evidences of pressure on foot, such as callus formation or discoloration
Examine joints and search for abnormal joint mobility
Check pulses, especially tibial posterior and dorsal pedal artery
Search for any evidence of previous ulcer and amputation
Evaluate footwears


References

  1. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Vela SA, Quebedeaux TL, Fleischli JG (1998). "Choosing a practical screening instrument to identify patients at risk for diabetic foot ulceration". Arch Intern Med. 158 (3): 289–92. doi:10.1001/archinte.158.3.289. PMID 9472210.
  2. Pinzur MS, Slovenkai MP, Trepman E, Shields NN, Diabetes Committee of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (2005). "Guidelines for diabetic foot care: recommendations endorsed by the Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society". Foot Ankle Int. 26 (1): 113–9. doi:10.1177/107110070502600112. PMID 15680122.
  3. Mishra SC, Chhatbar KC, Kashikar A, Mehndiratta A (2017). "Diabetic foot". BMJ. 359: j5064. doi:10.1136/bmj.j5064. PMC 5688746. PMID 29146579.
  4. Brownrigg JR, Apelqvist J, Bakker K, Schaper NC, Hinchliffe RJ (2013). "Evidence-based management of PAD & the diabetic foot". Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 45 (6): 673–81. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.02.014. PMID 23540807.
  5. Bus SA, Lavery LA, Monteiro-Soares M, Rasmussen A, Raspovic A, Sacco ICN; et al. (2020). "Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)". Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 36 Suppl 1: e3269. doi:10.1002/dmrr.3269. PMID 32176451 Check |pmid= value (help).
  6. Schaper NC, van Netten JJ, Apelqvist J, Bus SA, Hinchliffe RJ, Lipsky BA; et al. (2020). "Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019 update)". Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 36 Suppl 1: e3266. doi:10.1002/dmrr.3266. PMID 32176447 Check |pmid= value (help).
  7. Bakker K, Apelqvist J, Schaper NC, International Working Group on Diabetic Foot Editorial Board (2012). "Practical guidelines on the management and prevention of the diabetic foot 2011". Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 28 Suppl 1: 225–31. doi:10.1002/dmrr.2253. PMID 22271742.
  8. Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Vela SA, Quebedeaux TL, Fleischli JG (1998). "Practical criteria for screening patients at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration". Arch Intern Med. 158 (2): 157–62. doi:10.1001/archinte.158.2.157. PMID 9448554.
  9. Kumar S, Fernando DJ, Veves A, Knowles EA, Young MJ, Boulton AJ (1991). "Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: a simple, effective and inexpensive screening device for identifying diabetic patients at risk of foot ulceration". Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 13 (1–2): 63–7. doi:10.1016/0168-8227(91)90034-b. PMID 1773715.
  10. Mueller MJ (1996). "Identifying patients with diabetes mellitus who are at risk for lower-extremity complications: use of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments". Phys Ther. 76 (1): 68–71. doi:10.1093/ptj/76.1.68. PMID 8545495.
  11. Forouzandeh F, Aziz Ahari A, Abolhasani F, Larijani B (2005). "Comparison of different screening tests for detecting diabetic foot neuropathy". Acta Neurol Scand. 112 (6): 409–13. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00494.x. PMID 16281925.

[[Category:Up-to-date]