AIMS: To identify the threshold of reduced sensory perception in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 DM) using a range of research grade monofilaments. METHODS: Three groups of participants were recruited into a between subject, cross-sectional study. Group 1(NEW), persons with Type 2 DM diagnosed for less than 2 years (n = 80); Group 2 (EST) persons with Type 2 DM diagnosed for more than 2 years (n = 91), and Group 3, a Comparison group without Type 2 DM (n = 73), resulted in a total study population, n = 244. Research grade monofilaments (2, 4, 6, 8 and 10-gram) were employed using standardised protocol, at 6 sites on the plantar aspect of both feet. The demographic and anthropometric measures of gender, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure and duration of Type 2 DM since diagnosis (if applicable) of the participants were analysed. RESULTS: Perception of the research grade monofilaments differed significantly between the 3 groups (p < 0.05). The 6-gram monofilament was found to be the threshold of normal perception, based on 90% of the Comparison group perceiving the 6-gram monofilament at all sites in contrast to 64% of NEW and 48% of EST groups. CONCLUSION: The 6-gram monofilament was identified as the threshold of normal sensory perception. Inability to perceive the 6-gram monofilament indicates, when using the method described in this study, that diminution of sensory perception is evident. Employing a range of monofilaments, 6, 8 and 10-grams in Type 2 DM foot screening would allow the clinical detection of deteriorating sensory perception and enable implementation of foot protection strategies at an earlier stage than is currently practised.
AIMS: To identify the threshold of reduced sensory perception in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 DM) using a range of research grade monofilaments. METHODS: Three groups of participants were recruited into a between subject, cross-sectional study. Group 1(NEW), persons with Type 2 DM diagnosed for less than 2 years (n = 80); Group 2 (EST) persons with Type 2 DM diagnosed for more than 2 years (n = 91), and Group 3, a Comparison group without Type 2 DM (n = 73), resulted in a total study population, n = 244. Research grade monofilaments (2, 4, 6, 8 and 10-gram) were employed using standardised protocol, at 6 sites on the plantar aspect of both feet. The demographic and anthropometric measures of gender, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure and duration of Type 2 DM since diagnosis (if applicable) of the participants were analysed. RESULTS: Perception of the research grade monofilaments differed significantly between the 3 groups (p < 0.05). The 6-gram monofilament was found to be the threshold of normal perception, based on 90% of the Comparison group perceiving the 6-gram monofilament at all sites in contrast to 64% of NEW and 48% of EST groups. CONCLUSION: The 6-gram monofilament was identified as the threshold of normal sensory perception. Inability to perceive the 6-gram monofilament indicates, when using the method described in this study, that diminution of sensory perception is evident. Employing a range of monofilaments, 6, 8 and 10-grams in Type 2 DM foot screening would allow the clinical detection of deteriorating sensory perception and enable implementation of foot protection strategies at an earlier stage than is currently practised.
Authors: S Kumar; H A Ashe; L N Parnell; D J Fernando; C Tsigos; R J Young; J D Ward; A J Boulton Journal: Diabet Med Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Paolo Caserotti; Jane A Cauley; Robert M Boudreau; Bret H Goodpaster; Aaron I Vinik; Anne B Newman; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Aging Dis Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 6.745
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Paolo Caserotti; Kimberly Faulkner; Robert M Boudreau; Sasa Zivkovic; Christine Lee; Bret H Goodpaster; Peggy M Cawthon; Anne B Newman; Jane A Cauley; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kira Leishear; Robert M Boudreau; Stephanie A Studenski; Luigi Ferrucci; Caterina Rosano; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Denise K Houston; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Ann V Schwartz; Aaron I Vinik; Eva Hogervorst; Kristine Yaffe; Tamara B Harris; Anne B Newman; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Robert M Boudreau; Paolo Caserotti; Tamara B Harris; Sasa Zivkovic; Bret H Goodpaster; Suzanne Satterfield; Stephen Kritchevsky; Ann V Schwartz; Aaron I Vinik; Jane A Cauley; Anne B Newman; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jordan J Craig; Adam P Bruetsch; Sharon G Lynch; Jessie M Huisinga Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Richard B Paisey; Rosamund M Paisey; Mary P Thomson; Lynne Bower; Pietro Maffei; Julian P H Shield; Sue Barnett; Jan D Marshall Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 19.112