The association of chronic kidney disease and dialysis treatment with foot ulceration and major amputation

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4-5 and dialysis treatment on incidence of foot ulceration and major lower extremity amputation in comparison to CKD stage 3. Methods In this retrospective study, all individuals who visited our hospital between 2006 and 2012 because of CKD stages 3 to 5 or dialysis treatment were included. Medical records were reviewed for incidence of foot ulceration and major amputation. The time from CKD 3, CKD 4-5, and dialysis treatment until first foot ulceration and first major lower extremity amputation was calculated and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Diabetes mellitus, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy, and foot deformities were included for potential confounding. Results A total of 669 individuals were included: 539 in CKD 3, 540 in CKD 4-5, and 259 in dialysis treatment (individuals could progress from one group to the next). Unadjusted foot ulcer incidence rates per 1000 patients per year were 12 for CKD 3, 47 for CKD 4-5, and 104 for dialysis (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, the hazard ratio for incidence of foot ulceration was 4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-6.3) in CKD 4-5 and 7.6 (95% CI, 4.8-12.1) in dialysis treatment compared with CKD 3. Hazard ratios for incidence of major amputation were 9.5 (95% CI, 2.1-43.0) and 15 (95% CI, 3.3-71.0), respectively. Conclusions CKD 4-5 and dialysis treatment are independent risk factors for foot ulceration and major amputation compared with CKD 3. Maximum effort is needed in daily clinical practice to prevent foot ulcers and their devastating consequences in all individuals with CKD 4-5 or dialysis treatment.

Automatic detection of diabetic foot complications with infrared thermography by asymmetric analysis

Early identification of diabetic foot complications and their precursors is essential in preventing their devastating consequences, such as foot infection and amputation. Frequent, automatic risk assessment by an intelligent telemedicine system might be feasible and cost effective. Infrared thermography is a promising modality for such a system. The temperature differences between corresponding areas on contralateral feet are the clinically significant parameters. This asymmetric analysis is hindered by (1) foot segmentation errors, especially when the foot temperature and the ambient temperature are comparable, and by (2) different shapes and sizes between contralateral feet due to deformities or minor amputations. To circumvent the first problem, we used a color image and a thermal image acquired synchronously. Foot regions, detected in the color image, were rigidly registered to the thermal image. This resulted in 97.8% ± 1.1% sensitivity and 98.4% ± 0.5% specificity over 76 high-risk diabetic patients with manual annotation as a reference. Nonrigid landmark-based registration with Bsplines solved the second problem. Corresponding points in the two feet could be found regardless of the shapes and sizes of the feet. With that, the temperature difference of the left and right feet could be obtained.

Statistical analysis of spectral data: A methodology for designing an intelligent monitoring system for the diabetic foot

Early detection of (pre-)signs of ulceration on a diabetic foot is valuable for clinical practice. Hyperspectral imaging is a promising technique for detection and classification of such (pre-)signs. However, the number of the spectral bands should be limited to avoid overfitting, which is critical for pixel classification with hyperspectral image data. The goal was to design a detector/classifier based on spectral imaging (SI) with a small number of optical bandpass filters. The performance and stability of the design were also investigated. The selection of the bandpass filters boils down to a feature selection problem. A dataset was built, containing reflectance spectra of 227 skin spots from 64 patients, measured with a spectrometer. Each skin spot was annotated manually by clinicians as "healthy" or a specific (pre-)sign of ulceration. Statistical analysis on the data set showed the number of required filters is between 3 and 7, depending on additional constraints on the filter set. The stability analysis revealed that shot noise was the most critical factor affecting the classification performance. It indicated that this impact could be avoided in future SI systems with a camera sensor whose saturation level is higher than 106, or by postimage processing.

Assessment of signs of foot infection in diabetes patients using photographic foot imaging and infrared thermography

Background Patients with diabetic foot disease require frequent screening to prevent complications and may be helped through telemedical home monitoring. Within this context, the goal was to determine the validity and reliability of assessing diabetic foot infection using photographic foot imaging and infrared thermography. Subjects and Methods For 38 patients with diabetes who presented with a foot infection or were admitted to the hospital with a foot-related complication, photographs of the plantar foot surface using a photographic imaging device and temperature data from six plantar regions using an infrared thermometer were obtained. A temperature difference between feet of > 2.2 °C defined a ''hotspot.'' Two independent observers assessed each foot for presence of foot infection, both live (using the Perfusion-Extent-Depth- Infection-Sensation classification) and from photographs 2 and 4 weeks later (for presence of erythema and ulcers). Agreement in diagnosis between live assessment and (the combination of ) photographic assessment and temperature recordings was calculated. Results Diagnosis of infection from photographs was specific (> 85%) but not very sensitive (< 60%). Diagnosis based on hotspots present was sensitive (> 90%) but not very specific (<25%). Diagnosis based on the combination of photographic and temperature assessments was both sensitive (> 60%) and specific (> 79%). Intra-observer agreement between photographic assessments was good (Cohen's j = 0.77 and 0.52 for both observers). Conclusions Diagnosis of foot infection in patients with diabetes seems valid and reliable using photographic imaging in combination with infrared thermography. This supports the intended use of these modalities for the home monitoring of high-risk patients with diabetes to facilitate early diagnosis of signs of foot infection.

IWGDF guidance on the prevention of foot ulcers in at-risk patients with diabetes

Recommendations - 1 To identify a person with diabetes at risk for foot ulceration, examine the feet annually to seek evidence for signs or symptoms of peripheral neuropathy and peripheral artery disease. (GRADE strength of recommendation: strong; Quality of evidence: low) - 2 In a person with diabetes who has peripheral neuropathy, screen for a history of foot ulceration or lower-extremity amputation, peripheral artery disease, foot deformity, pre-ulcerative signs on the foot, poor foot hygiene and ill-fitting or inadequate footwear. (Strong; Low) - 3 Treat any pre-ulcerative sign on the foot of a patient with diabetes. This includes removing callus, protecting blisters and draining when necessary, treating ingrown or thickened toe nails, treating haemorrhage when necessary and prescribing antifungal treatment for fungal infections. (Strong; Low) - 4 To protect their feet, instruct an at-risk patient with diabetes not to walk barefoot, in socks only, or in thin-soled standard slippers, whether at home or when outside. (Strong; Low) - 5 Instruct an at-risk patient with diabetes to daily inspect their feet and the inside of their shoes, daily wash their feet (with careful drying particularly between the toes), avoid using chemical agents or plasters to remove callus or corns, use emollients to lubricate dry skin and cut toe nails straight across. (Weak; Low) - 6 Instruct an at-risk patient with diabetes to wear properly fitting footwear to prevent a first foot ulcer, either plantar or non-plantar, or a recurrent non-plantar foot ulcer. When a foot deformity or a pre-ulcerative sign is present, consider prescribing therapeutic shoes, custom-made insoles or toe orthosis. (Strong; Low) - 7 To prevent a recurrent plantar foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, prescribe therapeutic footwear that has a demonstrated plantar pressure-relieving effect during walking (i.e. 30% relief compared with plantar pressure in standard of care therapeutic footwear) and encourage the patient to wear this footwear. (Strong; Moderate) - 8 To prevent a first foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, provide education aimed at improving foot care knowledge and behaviour, as well as encouraging the patient to adhere to this foot care advice. (Weak; Low) - 9 To prevent a recurrent foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, provide integrated foot care, which includes professional foot treatment, adequate footwear and education. This should be repeated or re-evaluated once every 1 to 3 months as necessary. (Strong; Low) - 10 Instruct a high-risk patient with diabetes to monitor foot skin temperature at home to prevent a first or recurrent plantar foot ulcer. This aims at identifying the early signs of inflammation, followed by action taken by the patient and care provider to resolve the cause of inflammation. (Weak; Moderate) - 11 Consider digital flexor tenotomy to prevent a toe ulcer when conservative treatment fails in a high-risk patient with diabetes, hammertoes and either a pre-ulcerative sign or an ulcer on the distal toe. (Weak; Low) - 12 Consider Achilles tendon lengthening, joint arthroplasty, single or pan metatarsal head resection, or osteotomy to prevent a recurrent foot ulcer when conservative treatment fails in a high-risk patient with diabetes and a plantar forefoot ulcer. (Weak; Low) - 13 Do not use a nerve decompression procedure in an effort to prevent a foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, in preference to accepted standards of good quality care. (Weak; Low)

A shift in priority in diabetic foot care and research: 75% of foot ulcers are preventable

Diabetic foot ulceration poses a heavy burden on the patient and the healthcare system, but prevention thereof receives little attention. For every euro spent on ulcer prevention, ten are spent on ulcer healing, and for every randomized controlled trial conducted on prevention, ten are conducted on healing. In this article, we argue that a shift in priorities is needed. For the prevention of a first foot ulcer, we need more insight into the effect of interventions and practices already applied globally in many settings. This requires systematic recording of interventions and outcomes, and well-designed randomized controlled trials that include analysis of cost-effectiveness. After healing of a foot ulcer, the risk of recurrence is high. For the prevention of a recurrent foot ulcer, home monitoring of foot temperature, pressure-relieving therapeutic footwear, and certain surgical interventions prove to be effective. The median effect size found in a total of 23 studies on these interventions is large, over 60%, and further increases when patients are adherent to treatment. These interventions should be investigated for efficacy as a state-of-the-art integrated foot care approach, where attempts are made to assure treatment adherence. Effect sizes of 75-80% may be expected. If such state-of-the-art integrated foot care is implemented, the majority of problems with foot ulcer recurrence in diabetes can be resolved. It is therefore time to act and to set a new target in diabetic foot care. This target is to reduce foot ulcer incidence with at least 75%.

The 2015 IWGDF guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: Development of an evidence-based global consensus

Foot problems complicating diabetes are a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based, internationally appropriate diabetic foot care guidance is likely among the most cost-effective forms of healthcare expenditure, provided it is goal-focused and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing and updating international Practical Guidelines since 1999. The 2015 updates are based on systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations are formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. As such, we changed the name from 'Practical Guidelines' to 'Guidance'. In this article we describe the development of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. This Guidance consists of five documents, prepared by five working groups of international experts. These documents provide guidance related to foot complications in persons with diabetes on: prevention; footwear and offloading; peripheral artery disease; infections; and, wound healing interventions. Based on these five documents, the IWGDF Editorial Board produced a summary guidance for daily practice. The resultant of this process, after reviewed by the Editorial Board and by international IWGDF members of all documents, is an evidence-based global consensus on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. Plans are already under way to implement this Guidance. We believe that following the recommendations of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance will almost certainly result in improved management of foot problems in persons with diabetes and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the tragedies caused by these foot problems.

The reproducibility of acquiring three dimensional gait and plantar pressure data using established protocols in participants with and without type 2 diabetes and foot ulcers

Background Several prospective studies have suggested that gait and plantar pressure abnormalities secondary to diabetic peripheral neuropathy contributes to foot ulceration. There are many different methods by which gait and plantar pressures are assessed and currently there is no agreed standardised approach. This study aimed to describe the methods and reproducibility of three-dimensional gait and plantar pressure assessments in a small subset of participants using pre-existing protocols. Methods Fourteen participants were conveniently sampled prior to a planned longitudinal study; four patients with diabetes and plantar foot ulcers, five patients with diabetes but no foot ulcers and five healthy controls. The repeatability of measuring key biomechanical data was assessed including the identification of 16 key anatomical landmarks, the measurement of seven leg dimensions, the processing of 22 three-dimensional gait parameters and the analysis of four different plantar pressures measures at 20 foot regions. Results The mean inter-observer differences were within the pre-defined acceptable level (<7 mm) for 100 % (16 of 16) of key anatomical landmarks measured for gait analysis. The intra-observer assessment concordance correlation coefficients were > 0.9 for 100 % (7 of 7) of leg dimensions. The coefficients of variations (CVs) were within the pre-defined acceptable level (<10 %) for 100 % (22 of 22) of gait parameters. The CVs were within the pre-defined acceptable level (<30 %) for 95 % (19 of 20) of the contact area measures, 85 % (17 of 20) of mean plantar pressures, 70 % (14 of 20) of pressure time integrals and 55 % (11 of 20) of maximum sensor plantar pressure measures. Conclusion Overall, the findings of this study suggest that important gait and plantar pressure measurements can be reliably acquired. Nearly all measures contributing to three-dimensional gait parameter assessments were within predefined acceptable limits. Most plantar pressure measurements were also within predefined acceptable limits; however, reproducibility was not as good for assessment of the maximum sensor pressure. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the reproducibility of several biomechanical methods in a heterogeneous cohort.

Intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for treating diabetic foot ulcers

Background The estimated likelihood of lower limb amputation is 10 to 30 times higher amongst people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Of all non-traumatic amputations in people with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. Foot ulceration associated with diabetes (diabetic foot ulcers) is caused by the interplay of several factors, most notably diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and changes in foot structure. These factors have been linked to chronic hyperglycaemia (high levels of glucose in the blood) and the altered metabolic state of diabetes. Control of hyperglycaemia may be important in the healing of ulcers. Objectives To assess the effects of intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional control on the outcome of foot ulcers in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Search methods In December 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Elsevier SCOPUS; ISI Web of Knowledge Web of Science; BioMed Central and LILACS. We also searched clinical trial databases, pharmaceutical trial databases and current international and national clinical guidelines on diabetes foot management for relevant published, non-published, ongoing and terminated clinical trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria Published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion where they investigated the effects of intensive glycaemic control on the outcome of active foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Non randomised and quasi-randomised trials were excluded. In order to be included the trial had to have: 1) attempted to maintain or control blood glucose levels and measured changes in markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c or fasting, random, mean, home capillary or urine glucose), and 2) documented the effect of these interventions on active foot ulcer outcomes. Glycaemic interventions included subcutaneous insulin administration, continuous insulin infusion, oral anti-diabetes agents, lifestyle interventions or a combination of these interventions. The definition of the interventional (intensive) group was that it should have a lower glycaemic target than the comparison (conventional) group. Data collection and analysis All review authors independently evaluated the papers identified by the search strategy against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently reviewed all potential full-text articles and trials registry results for inclusion. Main results We only identified one trial that met the inclusion criteria but this trial did not have any results so we could not perform the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the absence of data. Two ongoing trials were identified which may provide data for analyses in a later version of this review. The completion date of these trials is currently unknown. Authors' conclusions The current review failed to find any completed randomised clinical trials with results. Therefore we are unable to conclude whether intensive glycaemic control when compared to conventional glycaemic control has a positive or detrimental effect on the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Previous evidence has however highlighted a reduction in risk of limb amputation (from various causes) in people with type 2 diabetes with intensive glycaemic control. Whether this applies to people with foot ulcers in particular is unknown. The exact role that intensive glycaemic control has in treating foot ulcers in multidisciplinary care (alongside other interventions targeted at treating foot ulcers) requires further investigation.

Prevalence of foot disease and risk factors in general inpatient populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To systematically review studies reporting the prevalence in general adult inpatient populations of foot disease disorders (foot wounds, foot infections, collective ‘foot disease’) and risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity). Methods: A systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2013 was undertaken using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). Keywords and synonyms relating to prevalence, inpatients, foot disease disorders and risk factors were used. Studies reporting foot disease or risk factor prevalence data in general inpatient populations were included. Included study's reference lists and citations were searched and experts consulted to identify additional relevant studies. 2 authors, blinded to each other, assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Applicable data were extracted by 1 author and checked by a second author. Prevalence proportions and SEs were calculated for all included studies. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects models where 3 eligible studies were available. Results: Of the 4972 studies initially identified, 78 studies reporting 84 different cohorts (total 60 231 517 participants) were included. Foot disease prevalence included: foot wounds 0.01–13.5% (70 cohorts), foot infections 0.05–6.4% (7 cohorts), collective foot disease 0.2–11.9% (12 cohorts). Risk factor prevalence included: PAD 0.01–36.0% (10 cohorts), PN 0.003–2.8% (6 cohorts), foot deformity was not reported. Pooled prevalence estimates were only able to be calculated for pressure ulcer-related foot wounds 4.6% (95% CI 3.7% to 5.4%)), diabetes-related foot wounds 2.4% (1.5% to 3.4%), diabetes-related foot infections 3.4% (0.2% to 6.5%), diabetes-related foot disease 4.7% (0.3% to 9.2%). Heterogeneity was high in all pooled estimates (I2=94.2–97.8%, p<0.001). Conclusions: This review found high heterogeneity, yet suggests foot disease was present in 1 in every 20 inpatients and a major risk factor in 1 in 3 inpatients. These findings are likely an underestimate and more robust studies are required to provide more precise estimates.

Lower limb biomechanical characteristics of patients with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: The diabetes foot ulcer study protocol

Background Foot ulceration is the main precursor to lower limb amputation in patients with type 2 diabetes worldwide. Biomechanical factors have been implicated in the development of foot ulceration; however the association of these factors to ulcer healing remains less clear. It may be hypothesised that abnormalities in temporal spatial parameters (stride to stride measurements), kinematics (joint movements), kinetics (forces on the lower limb) and plantar pressures (pressure placed on the foot during walking) contribute to foot ulcer healing. The primary aim of this study is to establish the biomechanical characteristics (temporal spatial parameters, kinematics, kinetics and plantar pressures) of patients with plantar neuropathic foot ulcers compared to controls without a history of foot ulcers. The secondary aim is to assess the same biomechanical characteristics in patients with foot ulcers and controls over-time to assess whether these characteristics remain the same or change throughout ulcer healing. Methods/Design The design is a case–control study nested in a six-month longitudinal study. Cases will be participants with active plantar neuropathic foot ulcers (DFU group). Controls will consist of patients with type 2 diabetes (DMC group) and healthy participants (HC group) with no history of foot ulceration. Standardised gait and plantar pressure protocols will be used to collect biomechanical data at baseline, three and six months. Descriptive variables and primary and secondary outcome variables will be compared between the three groups at baseline and follow-up. Discussion It is anticipated that the findings from this longitudinal study will provide important information regarding the biomechanical characteristic of type 2 diabetes patients with neuropathic foot ulcers. We hypothesise that people with foot ulcers will demonstrate a significantly compromised gait pattern (reduced temporal spatial parameters, kinematics and kinetics) at base line and then throughout the follow-up period compared to controls. The study may provide evidence for the design of gait-retraining, neuro-muscular conditioning and other approaches to off-load the limbs of those with foot ulcers in order to reduce the mechanical loading on the foot during gait and promote ulcer healing.

Reduced incidence of foot-related hospitalisation and amputation amongst persons with diabetes in Queensland, Australia

Objective To determine trends in the incidence of foot-related hospitalisation and amputation amongst persons with diabetes in Queensland (Australia) between 2005 and 2010 that coincided with changes in state-wide ambulatory diabetic foot-related complication management. Methods All data from cases admitted for the principal reason of diabetes foot-related hospitalisation or amputation in Queensland from 2005–2010 were obtained from the Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection dataset. Incidence rates for foot-related hospitalisation (admissions, bed days used) and amputation (total, minor, major) cases amongst persons with diabetes were calculated per 1,000 person-years with diabetes (diabetes population) and per 100,000 person-years (general population). Age-sex standardised incidence and age-sex adjusted Poisson regression models were also calculated for the general population. Results There were 4,443 amputations, 24,917 hospital admissions and 260,085 bed days used for diabetes foot-related complications in Queensland. Incidence per 1,000 person-years with diabetes decreased from 2005 to 2010: 43.0% for hospital admissions (36.6 to 20.9), 40.1% bed days (391 to 234), 40.0% total amputations (6.47 to 3.88), 45.0% major amputations (2.18 to 1.20), 37.5% minor amputations (4.29 to 2.68) (p < 0.01 respectively). Age-sex standardised incidence per 100,000 person-years in the general population also decreased from 2005 to 2010: 23.3% hospital admissions (105.1 to 80.6), 19.5% bed days (1,122 to 903), 19.3% total amputations (18.57 to 14.99), 26.4% major amputations (6.26 to 4.61), 15.7% minor amputations (12.32 to 10.38) (p < 0.01 respectively). The age-sex adjusted incidence rates per calendar year decreased in the general population (rate ratio (95% CI)); hospital admissions 0.949 (0.942–0.956), bed days 0.964 (0.962–0.966), total amputations 0.962 (0.946–0.979), major amputations 0.945 (0.917–0.974), minor amputations 0.970 (0.950–0.991) (p < 0.05 respectively). Conclusions There were significant reductions in the incidence of foot-related hospitalisation and amputation amongst persons with diabetes in the population of Queensland over a recent six-year period.

How do Australian podiatrists manage patients with diabetes The Australian diabetic foot management survey

Background Diabetic foot complications are the leading cause of lower extremity amputation and diabetes-related hospitalisation in Australia. Studies demonstrate significant reductions in amputations and hospitalisation when health professionals implement best practice management. Whilst other nations have surveyed health professionals on specific diabetic foot management, to the best of the authors’ knowledge this appears not to have occurred in Australia. The primary aim of this study was to examine Australian podiatrists’ diabetic foot management compared with best practice recommendations by the Australian National Health Medical Research Council. Methods A 36-item Australian Diabetic Foot Management survey, employing seven-point Likert scales (0 = Never; 7 = Always) to measure multiple aspects of best practice diabetic foot management was developed. The survey was briefly tested for face and content validity. The survey was electronically distributed to Australian podiatrists via professional associations. Demographics including sex, years treating patients with diabetes, employment-sector and patient numbers were also collected. Chi-squared and Mann Whitney U tests were used to test differences between sub-groups. Results Three hundred and eleven podiatrists responded; 222 (71%) were female, 158 (51%) from the public sector and 11–15 years median experience. Participants reported treating a median of 21–30 diabetes patients each week, including 1–5 with foot ulcers. Overall, participants registered median scores of at least “very often” (>6) in their use of most items covering best practice diabetic foot management. Notable exceptions were: “never” (1 (1 – 3)) using total contact casting, “sometimes” (4 (2 – 5)) performing an ankle brachial index, “sometimes” (4 (1 – 6)) using University of Texas Wound Classification System, and “sometimes” (4 (3 – 6) referring to specialist multi-disciplinary foot teams. Public sector podiatrists reported higher use or access on all those items compared to private sector podiatrists (p < 0.01). Conclusions This study provides the first baseline information on Australian podiatrists’ adherence to best practice diabetic foot guidelines. It appears podiatrists manage large caseloads of people with diabetes and are generally implementing best practice guidelines recommendations with some notable exceptions. Further studies are required to identify barriers to implementing these recommendations to ensure all Australians with diabetes have access to best practice care to prevent amputations.

Partial foot amputations may not always be worth the risk of complications

To the Editor: Dillon and colleagues present a challenging perspective on the evidence comparing partial foot amputation (PFA) and below-knee amputation (BKA) outcomes.1,2 Australia's diabetes-related major amputation rates have only recently reduced to international levels3 and we fear that any oversimplistic perspectives may be detrimental to these improved rates and, importantly, to our patients. Thus, we believe these articles1,2 should be read cognisant of some important points...

How many inpatients in our hospitals have foot complications? The foot disease in inpatients study

Background Foot complications have been found to affect large proportions of hospital in patients with diabetes. However, no studies have investigated the proportion of foot complications affecting all people in general inpatient populations. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to investigate the point-prevalence of different foot complications in general inpatient populations, analyse differences in diabetes and non-diabetes sub-groups, and examine characteristics of people primarily admitted for a foot complication. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. All participants underwent a physical foot examination, by trained podiatrists using validated measures, to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including foot wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and peripheral neuropathy (PN). Data were also collected on participants' primary reason for admission and a range of demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot complication history, self-care and footwear risk factors. Results Overall, 733 participants consented (83% of eligible participants); mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 480 (55.8%) male and 172 (23.5%) had diabetes. Foot complication prevalence included: wounds 9.0% (95% CI) (5.1-8.7), infections 3.3% (2.2-4.9), deformity 22.4% (19.5-26.7), PAD 21.0% (18.2-24.1) and PN 22.0% (19.1-25.1). Diabetes populations had significantly more foot complications than non-diabetes (p < 0.01); wounds (15.7% vs 7.0%), infections (7.1% vs 2.2%), deformity (30.5% vs 19.9%), PAD (35.1% vs 16.7%) and PN (43.3% vs 15.4%). Foot complications were the primary reason for admission in 7.4% (95% CI) (5.7-9.5) of all participants. In a backwards stepwise multivariate analysis having a foot complication as the primary reason for admission was independently associated (OR (95% CI) with foot wounds (18.9 (7.3-48.7)), foot infections (6.0 (1.6-22.4)), history of amputation (4.7 (1.3-17.0) and PAD (2.9 (1.3-6.6)). Conclusions Findings of this study indicate one in every ten hospital inpatients had an active foot wound or infection. In patients with diabetes had significantly higher proportions of foot complications than non-diabetes inpatients. Remarkably one in every thirteen inpatients in this study were primarily hospitalised for a foot complication. Further research and policy is required to tackle this seemingly large inpatient foot complication burden.