Petra Jones1,2, Richard Bibb3, Melanie Davies1,2,4, Kamlesh Khunti1,2, Matthew McCarthy1,2,4, David Webb1,2, Francesco Zaccardi1,2. 1. Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, UK. 2. Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, UK. 3. Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK. 4. NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting the risk of diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) could dramatically reduce the enormous burden of chronic wound management and amputation. Yet, the current prognostic models are unable to precisely predict DFU events. Typically, efforts have focused on individual factors like temperature, pressure, or shear rather than the overall foot microclimate. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed reports with no restrictions on start date covering the literature published until February 20, 2019 using relevant keywords, including temperature, pressure, shear, and relative humidity. We review the use of these variables as predictors of DFU, highlighting gaps in our current understanding and suggesting which specific features should be combined to develop a real-time microclimate prognostic model. RESULTS: The current prognostic models rely either solely on contralateral temperature, pressure, or shear measurement; these parameters, however, rarely reach 50% specificity in relation to DFU. There is also considerable variation in methodological investigation, anatomical sensor configuration, and resting time prior to temperature measurements (5-20 minutes). Few studies have considered relative humidity and mean skin resistance. CONCLUSION: Very limited evidence supports the use of single clinical parameters in predicting the risk of DFU. We suggest that the microclimate as a whole should be considered to predict DFU more effectively and suggest nine specific features which appear to be implicated for further investigation. Technology supports real-time in-shoe data collection and wireless transmission, providing a potentially rich source of data to better predict the risk of DFU.
BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting the risk of diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) could dramatically reduce the enormous burden of chronic wound management and amputation. Yet, the current prognostic models are unable to precisely predict DFU events. Typically, efforts have focused on individual factors like temperature, pressure, or shear rather than the overall foot microclimate. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed reports with no restrictions on start date covering the literature published until February 20, 2019 using relevant keywords, including temperature, pressure, shear, and relative humidity. We review the use of these variables as predictors of DFU, highlighting gaps in our current understanding and suggesting which specific features should be combined to develop a real-time microclimate prognostic model. RESULTS: The current prognostic models rely either solely on contralateral temperature, pressure, or shear measurement; these parameters, however, rarely reach 50% specificity in relation to DFU. There is also considerable variation in methodological investigation, anatomical sensor configuration, and resting time prior to temperature measurements (5-20 minutes). Few studies have considered relative humidity and mean skin resistance. CONCLUSION: Very limited evidence supports the use of single clinical parameters in predicting the risk of DFU. We suggest that the microclimate as a whole should be considered to predict DFU more effectively and suggest nine specific features which appear to be implicated for further investigation. Technology supports real-time in-shoe data collection and wireless transmission, providing a potentially rich source of data to better predict the risk of DFU.
Authors: William R Ledoux; Jane B Shofer; Matthew S Cowley; Jessie H Ahroni; Victoria Cohen; Edward J Boyko Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Karen Ousey; Paul Chadwick; Arkadiusz Jawien; Gulnaz Tariq; Harikrishna K Ragavan Nair; José Luis Lázaro-Martínez; Kylie Sandy-Hodgetts; Paulo Alves; Stephanie Wu; Zena Moore Journal: J Wound Care Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 2.072
Authors: G E Reiber; L Vileikyte; E J Boyko; M del Aguila; D G Smith; L A Lavery; A J Boulton Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jaap J van Netten; Miranda Prijs; Jeff G van Baal; Chanjuan Liu; Ferdi van der Heijden; Sicco A Bus Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: N Papanas; K Papatheodorou; D Papazoglou; C Monastiriotis; E Maltezos Journal: Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes Date: 2008-08-25 Impact factor: 2.949
Authors: N L Petrova; A Whittam; A MacDonald; S Ainarkar; A N Donaldson; J Bevans; J Allen; P Plassmann; B Kluwe; F Ring; L Rogers; R Simpson; G Machin; M E Edmonds Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Alexander M Reyzelman; Kristopher Koelewyn; Maryam Murphy; Xuening Shen; E Yu; Raji Pillai; Jie Fu; Henk Jan Scholten; Ran Ma Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 5.428