| Literature DB >> 32183276 |
Raúl Juan Molines-Barroso1, Yolanda García-Álvarez1, José Luis García-Klepzig2, Esther García-Morales1, Francisco Javier Álvaro-Afonso1, José Luis Lázaro-Martínez1.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the differences in the sub-metatarsal skin and fat pad atrophy between patients at a high risk of ulceration with and without previous metatarsal head resection. A cross-sectional study was performed in a diabetic foot unit involving 19 participants with a history of metatarsal head resection (experimental group) and 19 (control group) without a history of metatarsal head resection but with an ulcer in other locations in the metatarsal head. No participants had active ulcerations at study inclusion. Sub-metatarsal skin thickness and fat pad thickness in the first and second metatarsals were evaluated by an ultrasound transducer. The experimental group showed sub-metatarsal fat pad atrophy (3.74 ± 1.18 mm and 2.52 ± 1.04 mm for first and second metatarsal, respectively) compared with the control group (5.44 ± 1.12 mm and 4.73 ± 1.59 mm) (p < 0.001, confidence interval: (CI): 0.943-2.457 and p < 0.001, CI: 1.143-3.270 for first and second metatarsal, respectively); however, sub-metatarsal skin thickness was not different between groups (experimental 2.47 ± 0.47 mm vs. control 2.80 ± 0.58 mm (p = 0.063, CI: -0.019-0.672) and 2.24 ± 0.60 mm vs. 2.62 ± 0.50 mm (p = 0.066, CI: -0.027-0.786) for first and second metatarsal, respectively). Patients with previous metatarsal head resection showed sub-metatarsal fat pad atrophy, which could be associated with the risk of reulceration in the metatarsal head.Entities:
Keywords: and history of ulceration; fat pad atrophy; metatarsal head resection; ultrasound
Year: 2020 PMID: 32183276 PMCID: PMC7141333 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030794
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Ultrasound image of the sub-metatarsal skin and fat pad thickness under the medial sesamoid. Point A to point B, representing the thickness of the sub-metatarsal fat pad; point B to point C, representing the thickness of the sub-metatarsal skin.
Intra-subject and inter-subject reliability measurements.
| Intra-Subject Reliability | Inter-Subject Reliability | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Observer A | Observer B | ||
| 1st Metatarsal | 958 * (919–978) | 959 * (921–979) | 795 * (606–894) |
| 2nd Metatarsal | 932 * (855–968) | 929 * (849–967) | 779 * (529–896) |
| 1st Metatarsal | 993 * (986–996) | 993 * (986–996) | 962 * (926–980) |
| 2nd Metatarsal | 994 * (988–997) | 989 * (977–995) | 952 * (898–978) |
Abbreviations: ICCs = intraclass correlation coefficients, CI = confidence interval. * p value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Figure 2Flow chart of the included patients.
Baseline data of the sample.
| ( | Control Group | Experimental Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male/Female | 14 (74)/5 (26) | 13 (68)/6 (32) | 0.721 |
| Type 1/Type 2 DM | 4 (21)/15 (79) | 1 (5)/18 (95) | 0.150 |
| PAD | 12 (63) | 10 (53) | 0.511 |
| Retinopathy | 4 (21) | 5 (26) | 0.703 |
| Nephropathy | 3 (16) | 2 (11) | 0.631 |
| Mean age ± SD (Years) | 60 ± 11.1 | 65 ± 9.4 | 0.124 |
| Diabetes Mellitus (Years), Mean ± SD | 23 ± 18.4 | 21 ± 12.9 | 0.746 |
| SINBAD Classification Score (Points), Mean ± SD | 2.3 ± 7.5 | 3.1 ± 1.3 | 0.036 |
| Glycated Haemoglobin mmol/mol, Mean ± SD | 53.57 ± 8.83 | 58.61 ± 16.63 | 0.254 |
| Body Mass Index (kg/cm2), Mean ± SD | 29.84 ± 5.91 | 28.69 ± 5.47 | 0.537 |
Abbreviations: DM = diabetes mellitus. p value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Figure 3Sub-metatarsal skin thickness. Left figure for first metatarsal head and right figure for second metatarsal head. p value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Figure 4Sub-metatarsal fat pad. Left figure for first metatarsal and right figure for second metatarsal. p value < 0.05 was considered significant.