References

International Diabetes Federation (IDF). IDF Diabetes Atlas. 2015. https://tinyurl.com/sd9yztc (accessed 9 January 2020)

Nguyen DV, Shaw LC, Grant MB. Inflammation in the pathogenesis of microvascular complications in diabetes. Front Endocrinol. 2012; 3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2012.00170

Papatheodorou K, Papanas N, Banach M Complications of diabetes 2016. J Diabetes Res. 2016; 2016:1-3 https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6989453

Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA. Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. New Eng J Med. 2017; 376:(24)2367-2375

Gupta SK, Panda S, Singh SK. The aetiopathogenesis of the diabetic foot: an unrelenting epidemic. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2010; 9:(3)127-131 https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734610380029

Fernando ME, Crowther RG, Lazzarini PA Plantar pressures are higher in cases with diabetic foot ulcers compared to controls despite a longer stance phase duration. BMC Endocr Disord. 2016; 16:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-0160131-9

Pit'hová P, Pátková H, Galandáková I Differences in ulcer location in diabetic foot syndrome. Vnitr Lek. 2007; 53:(12)1278-1285

Yang W, Dall TM, Beronjia K Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41:(5)917-928 https://doi.org/10.2337/dci18-0007

Driver VR, Fabbi M, Lavery LA, Gibbons G. The costs of diabetic foot: The economic case for the limb salvage team. J Vasc Surg. 2010; 52:17S-22S https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.003

Rice JB, Desai U, Cummings AK Burden of diabetic foot ulcers for medicare and private insurers. Diabetes Care. 2014; 37:(3)651-658 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2176

Skrepnek GH, Mills JL, Lavery LA, Armstrong DG. Health care service and outcomes among an estimated 6.7 million ambulatory care diabetic foot cases in the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40:(7)936-942 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2189

Lavery LA, Davis KE, Berriman SJ WHS guidelines update: Diabetic foot ulcer treatment guidelines. Wound Repair Regen. 2016; 24:(1)112-126 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12391

Fife CE, Carter MJ, Walker D. Why is it so hard to do the right thing in wound care?. Wound Repair Regen. 2010; 18:(2)154-158 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524475X.2010.00571.x

Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Wu S, Boulton AJ. Evaluation of removable and irremovable cast walkers in the healing of diabetic foot wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28:(3)551-554 https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.28.3.551

Adatto M, Adatto-Neilson R, Servant JJ Controlled, randomized study evaluating the effects of treating cellulite with AWT/EPAT. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2010; 12:(4)176-182 https://doi.org/10.3109/14764172.2010.500392

Gutekunst DJ, Hastings MK, Bohnert KL Removable cast walker boots yield greater forefoot off-loading than total contact casts. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011; 26:(6)649-654 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.03.010

Bus SA, Armstrong DG, van Deursen RW IWGDF guidance on footwear and offloading interventions to prevent and heal foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016; 32:25-36 https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2697

Wu SC, Jensen JL, Weber AK Use of pressure offloading devices in diabetic foot ulcers: do we practice what we preach?. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31:(11)2118-2119 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-0771

Material choices in foot orthotic design. https://tinyurl.com/s926xbm (accessed 13 January 2020)

Armstrong DG, Athanasiou KA. The edge effect: how and why wounds grow in size and depth. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 1998; 15:(1)105-108

McGuire JM, Sebag JA. Reexamining the gold standard for offloading of DFUs. Pod Today. 2017; 30:(3)60-64

McGuire JB. Pressure redistribution strategies for the diabetic or at-risk foot: Part II. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2006; 19:(5)270-277 https://doi.org/10.1097/00129334200606000-00012

McGuire JB Pressure redistribution strategies for the diabetic or at-risk foot. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2006; 19:(5)270-277 https://doi.org/10.1097/00129334200606000-00012

Boulton AJ, Armstrong DG, Albert SF Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment: a report of the task force of the foot care interest group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31:(8)1679-1685 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-9021

Comparison of two pixelated insoles using in-shoe pressure sensors to determine percent offloading: case studies

02 May 2021
Volume 5 · Issue 2

Abstract

Objective:

The gold standard for offloading neuropathic forefoot and midfoot wounds is the total contact cast (TCC). However, in practice TCC is rarely used and is contraindicated in patients with fluctuating oedema, poor perfusion, lack of adequate tissue oxygenation and morbid obesity. It can also be too restrictive for patients, inevitably resulting in treatment rejection and delayed healing. This paper examines the role of shoe-based offloading devices as an alternative in reducing plantar pressure and optimising the healing of neuropathic ulcers.

Method:

Healthy subjects were recruited and fitted for two types of pixelated insoles: PegAssist (PA) insole system (Darco International, US) and FORS-15 (FORS) offloading insole (Saluber, Italy). An area of discreet, elevated high pressure was created by adding a 1/4-inch-thick felt pad to the plantar skin under the first metatarsal head. Subjects walked barefoot in surgical shoes with standard insoles (Condition 1), barefoot in pixelated insoles (Condition 2), barefoot with pixels removed (Condition 3). Dynamic plantar pressures were measured using F-Scan and the results were analysed to determine plantar pressure changes in each condition.

Results:

Using PA, the percentage reduction of plantar pressure (kPa) under the first metatarsal between Condition 1 and Condition 2 was 10.54±15.81% (p=0.022), between Condition 2 and Condition 3 was 40.13±11.11% (p<0.001), and between Condition 1 and Condition 3 was 46.67±12.95 % (p<0.001). Using FORS, the percentage reduction between Condition 1 and Condition 2 was 24.25±23.33% (p=0.0029), between Condition 2 and Condition 3 was 23.61±19.45% (p<0.001), and between Condition 1 and Condition 3 was 43.39±18.70% (p<0.001). A notable difference in the findings between the two insoles was the presence of a significant edge effect associated with PA, indicating that the offloading was not entirely successful. No edge effect was detected with FORS.

Conclusion:

Our current analysis shows that pixelated insoles exhibit potential for supplemental offloading in surgical shoes. These devices could provide an alternative way for physicians to offload plantar wounds and expedite closure for patients that cannot tolerate a TCC or other restrictive devices.

Diabetes is a worldwide epidemic that affects over 400 million people.1 Complications of diabetes are systemic, with marked increases in the frequency of peripheral vascular disease, retinopathy, nephropathy and peripheral neuropathy.2,3 A major challenging clinical scenario faced by healthcare providers in treating the people with diabetes is the management of neuropathic foot ulceration, which is expected in about 25% of the diseased population.4 Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) most often develop on the plantar surface where focal stress and hypoesthesia lead to undetected trauma on the affected anatomy, resulting in skin breakdown and ulceration.5 The most frequent area of increased pressure plantarly is the forefoot, which correlates with the most common sites of neuropathic ulceration.6,7

The majority of these wounds develop an infection, and about 20% of neuropathic ulcers will necessitate amputation.4 In 2017, medical care for diabetes was estimated at around $327 billion USD globally, with DFUs comprising about 33% of the cost.8,9 In the US, DFUs alone cost between $9–13 billion USD annually, with money often spent on ineffective and costly products.10 Even after ulcer resolution, Shrepnek et al. calculated that 40% of patients will have a recurrence in one year, reaching up to 65% of patients within five years.11 As a result, effective and lasting treatments continue to be an ongoing issue.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Wound Central and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for wound care professionals. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Access to clinical or professional articles

  • New content and clinical updates each month