INTRODUCTION: Diabetic foot ulcer is the main aetiology for non-traumatic amputation, which is a major public health care concern. A multidisciplinary approach in the management of this pathology has been shown to improve the surgical outcome. However, there are little data available on the tools we can use to pursue this multidisciplinary approach. The main goal of this cross-sectional study was to find out whether the implementation of a specific management pathway could improve the treatment outcome in the treatment of diabetic foot. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2012 to 2014, we consecutively recruited patients with diabetic foot referred to Orthopaedic surgery department of our university for surgical opinion. A specific diabetic foot pathway was introduced in 2013. One group of patients who were treated with previous method were evaluated retrospectively. Another group of patients who were treated after implementation of the pathway were evaluated prospectively. We compared treatment outcome between the two groups. RESULTS: We included 51 patients. Amputation rate was similar both the groups: 74% in the retrospective group not using the new pathway versus 73% in a prospective group that used the new pathway. Revision surgery was 39% in the retrospective group and 14% in the prospective group (p=0.05). CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of this simple and cost-effective pathway to guide the interdisciplinary management of diabetic foot. A prospective study with more subjects would provide a better overview of this management pathway.
INTRODUCTION: Diabetic foot ulcer is the main aetiology for non-traumatic amputation, which is a major public health care concern. A multidisciplinary approach in the management of this pathology has been shown to improve the surgical outcome. However, there are little data available on the tools we can use to pursue this multidisciplinary approach. The main goal of this cross-sectional study was to find out whether the implementation of a specific management pathway could improve the treatment outcome in the treatment of diabetic foot. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2012 to 2014, we consecutively recruited patients with diabetic foot referred to Orthopaedic surgery department of our university for surgical opinion. A specific diabetic foot pathway was introduced in 2013. One group of patients who were treated with previous method were evaluated retrospectively. Another group of patients who were treated after implementation of the pathway were evaluated prospectively. We compared treatment outcome between the two groups. RESULTS: We included 51 patients. Amputation rate was similar both the groups: 74% in the retrospective group not using the new pathway versus 73% in a prospective group that used the new pathway. Revision surgery was 39% in the retrospective group and 14% in the prospective group (p=0.05). CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of this simple and cost-effective pathway to guide the interdisciplinary management of diabetic foot. A prospective study with more subjects would provide a better overview of this management pathway.
Authors: Benjamin A Lipsky; Javier Aragón-Sánchez; Mathew Diggle; John Embil; Shigeo Kono; Lawrence Lavery; Éric Senneville; Vilma Urbančič-Rovan; Suzanne Van Asten; Edgar J G Peters Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Linda S Geiss; Jing Wang; Yiling J Cheng; Theodore J Thompson; Lawrence Barker; Yanfeng Li; Ann L Albright; Edward W Gregg Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 56.272