BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are at high risk for plantar skin breakdown due to unnoticed plantar stresses during walking. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in stress variables (peak plantar pressure, peak pressure gradient, peak maximal subsurface shear stress, and depth of peak maximal subsurface shear stress) between the forefoot (where most ulcers occur) and the rear foot in subjects with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer measured during barefoot walking. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four subjects participated: 12 with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer (DM+PN group) and 12 with no history of diabetes mellitus or peripheral neuropathy (control group). The subjects (11 men, 13 women) had a mean age (+/-SD) of 54+/-8 years. METHODS: Plantar pressures were measured during barefoot walking using a pressure platform. Stress variables were estimated at the forefoot and the rear foot for all subjects. RESULTS: All stress variables were higher (127%-871%) in the forefoot than in the rear foot, and the peak pressure gradient showed the greatest difference (538%-871%). All stress variables were higher in the forefoot in the DM+PN group compared with the control group (34%-85%), and the peak pressure gradient showed the greatest difference (85%). The depth (X+/-SD) of peak maximum subsurface shear stress in the forefoot in the DM+PN group was half that in the control group (3.8+/-2.0 versus 8.0+/-4.3 mm, respectively). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: : These results indicate that stresses are relatively higher and located closer to the skin surface in locations where skin breakdown is most likely to occur. These stress variables may have additional value in predicting skin injury over the traditionally measured peak plantar pressure, but prospective studies using these variables to predict ulcer risk are needed to test this hypothesis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are at high risk for plantar skin breakdown due to unnoticed plantar stresses during walking. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in stress variables (peak plantar pressure, peak pressure gradient, peak maximal subsurface shear stress, and depth of peak maximal subsurface shear stress) between the forefoot (where most ulcers occur) and the rear foot in subjects with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer measured during barefoot walking. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four subjects participated: 12 with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer (DM+PN group) and 12 with no history of diabetes mellitus or peripheral neuropathy (control group). The subjects (11 men, 13 women) had a mean age (+/-SD) of 54+/-8 years. METHODS: Plantar pressures were measured during barefoot walking using a pressure platform. Stress variables were estimated at the forefoot and the rear foot for all subjects. RESULTS: All stress variables were higher (127%-871%) in the forefoot than in the rear foot, and the peak pressure gradient showed the greatest difference (538%-871%). All stress variables were higher in the forefoot in the DM+PN group compared with the control group (34%-85%), and the peak pressure gradient showed the greatest difference (85%). The depth (X+/-SD) of peak maximum subsurface shear stress in the forefoot in the DM+PN group was half that in the control group (3.8+/-2.0 versus 8.0+/-4.3 mm, respectively). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: : These results indicate that stresses are relatively higher and located closer to the skin surface in locations where skin breakdown is most likely to occur. These stress variables may have additional value in predicting skin injury over the traditionally measured peak plantar pressure, but prospective studies using these variables to predict ulcer risk are needed to test this hypothesis.
Authors: Jennifer A Mayfield; Gayle E Reiber; Lee J Sanders; Dennis Janisse; Leonard M Pogach Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: David G Armstrong; Lawrence A Lavery; Katherine Holtz-Neiderer; Martha J Mohler; Christopher S Wendel; Brent P Nixon; Andrew J M Boulton Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Douglas D Robertson; Michael J Mueller; Kirk E Smith; Paul K Commean; Thomas Pilgram; Jeffrey E Johnson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Sicco A Bus; Qing X Yang; Jinghua H Wang; Michael B Smith; Roshna Wunderlich; Peter R Cavanagh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Michael J Mueller; Mary Hastings; Paul K Commean; Kirk E Smith; Thomas K Pilgram; Douglas Robertson; Jeffrey Johnson Journal: J Biomech Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: David R Sinacore; Mary K Hastings; Kathryn L Bohnert; Faye A Fielder; Dennis T Villareal; Vilray P Blair; Jeffrey E Johnson Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2008-09-18
Authors: Ericka N Merriwether; Mary K Hastings; Kathryn L Bohnert; John H Hollman; Michael J Strube; David R Sinacore Journal: Edorium J Disabil Rehabil Date: 2016-03-26
Authors: Tom Melai; Nicolaas C Schaper; T Herman Ijzerman; Ton Lh de Lange; Paul Jb Willems; Valéria Lima Passos; Aloysius G Lieverse; Kenneth Meijer; Hans Hcm Savelberg Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 2.303