Nicolás Lorenzini1, Claudio Díaz1, Tamara Quintana1. 1. Centro de Salud Familiar María Latife Saadi, Corporación Municipal de Rancagua, Chile Universidad Católica del Maule, Chile.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sudomotor dysfunction may appear in early stages of diabetic neuropathy. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic capacity of the Neuropad test, based on the detection of sudomotor dysfunction, as an early indicator of diabetic neuropathy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In Forty-two type 2 diabetic patients, the Neuropad test was compared with the 10 g monofilament test (proposed in the technical orientation of diabetic foot of the Ministry of Health of Chile), deep and thermal sensitivity. RESULTS: The surface sensitivity assessed with a brush had a sensitivity and specificity of 18.8 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. When compared with the Neuropad, the figures were 9 and 100%, respectively. Pain perception sensitivity and specificity were 13 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 6 and 100%, when compared with the Neuropad. Thermal discrimination had a sensitivity and specificity of 88 and 33% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 75 and 25% respectively when compared with the Neuropad. The deep sensitivity evaluated with a 128 Hz tuning fork had a sensitivity and specificity of 31 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 16 and 31% respectively when compared with the Neuropad. The Neuropad had a sensitivity and specificity of 94 and 29% respectively were compared with the 10 g monofilament. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropad had a good diagnostic yield for the early detection of sudomotor dysfunction.
BACKGROUND:Sudomotor dysfunction may appear in early stages of diabetic neuropathy. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic capacity of the Neuropad test, based on the detection of sudomotor dysfunction, as an early indicator of diabetic neuropathy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In Forty-two type 2 diabeticpatients, the Neuropad test was compared with the 10 g monofilament test (proposed in the technical orientation of diabetic foot of the Ministry of Health of Chile), deep and thermal sensitivity. RESULTS: The surface sensitivity assessed with a brush had a sensitivity and specificity of 18.8 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. When compared with the Neuropad, the figures were 9 and 100%, respectively. Pain perception sensitivity and specificity were 13 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 6 and 100%, when compared with the Neuropad. Thermal discrimination had a sensitivity and specificity of 88 and 33% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 75 and 25% respectively when compared with the Neuropad. The deep sensitivity evaluated with a 128 Hz tuning fork had a sensitivity and specificity of 31 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 16 and 31% respectively when compared with the Neuropad. The Neuropad had a sensitivity and specificity of 94 and 29% respectively were compared with the 10 g monofilament. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropad had a good diagnostic yield for the early detection of sudomotor dysfunction.