Studying the Diabetic Foot at Risk Using a 60-Second Foot Screening Tool and the Importance of the Categories of the Foot at Risk in Diabetes Patients at a Tertiary Care Center in East India.
| Autor: | Behera KK; Endocrinology and Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, IND., Soren UK; General Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM Hospital, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, IND., Behera BK; Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, IND., Devi S; General Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, IND. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | Cureus [Cureus] 2024 Oct 29; Vol. 16 (10), pp. e72615. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Oct 29 (Print Publication: 2024). |
| DOI: | 10.7759/cureus.72615 |
| Abstrakt: | Introduction The etiology of a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is multifactorial. The three main components that are implicated in DFUs are foot deformity, repeated minor trauma to the foot, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Aim and objectives The study aims to find the prevalence of diabetes patients having a foot at risk using the Simplified 60-Second Diabetic Foot Screen tool (SSDFST). The objective is to ascertain the dispersal of various categories of the foot at risk in patients with diabetes and to find out the association of neuropathy with the various risk factors for the evolution of DFUs . Materials and methods This was a cross-sectional study comprising 128 patients; a detailed history and examination including neurological and vascular assessment were performed attending a tertiary care hospital. Patients were screened for the risk of diabetic foot using the SSDFST. The detection of loss of protective sensation (LOPS) using a simple 10-g monofilament test (10g M) was highly predictive of subsequent ulceration, which had been reported by the Seattle Diabetic Foot Study. The foot at risk was correlated with demographic and clinical features. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, significant at p = 0.05. Results Out of 128 patients, 92 (72%) and 36 (28%) were male and female, respectively. The mean duration of diabetes was 7.42 ± 6.23 years (range 1-27). The mean age and BMI of the study population were 53.13 ± 10.99 years and 25.93 ± 4.46 kg/m 2 , respectively. Out of 128 patients, 82 (64%) were normal without any risk factor for diabetic foot, and 46 (36%) patients had at least one risk factor for diabetic foot using the SSDFST. About 36% of patients were combinedly qualified for the foot at risk into (categories 1, 2, and 3), among which six (5%) were placed under category 1, 18 (14%) patients were classified under category 2 with LOPS + PAD, and 22 (17%) were placed under category 3 with a history of ulcer and/or amputation. The duration of diabetes, previous foot ulcer, deformity, absent pedal pulses, active ulcers, and neuropathy (p = 0.05) were significantly associated with neuropathy measured by 10g M. Conclusions Our study revealed that one-third of our patients had at least one risk factor for the diabetic foot using the SSDFST. About one-fifth of our patients had neuropathy detected by monofilaments. Meanwhile, two-fifth of the study population were aware of proper foot care practices. Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institute Ethics Committee of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar issued approval T/IM-NF/Endoci/19/20. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. (Copyright © 2024, Behera et al.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|