Diabetic Foot: Are Existing Clinical Practice Guidelines Evidence-Informed?

¹Dept of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College (Manipal University), Mangalore, India

²Dept of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College (Manipal University), Mangalore, India

³Srinivas College of Physiotherapy, Pandeshwar, Mangalore, India

*Corresponding Author:

Senthil P Kumar
Dept of Physiotherapy
Kasturba Medical College (Manipal University)
Mangalore, India
Tel: 00919341963889
E-mail: Senthil.kumar@manipal.edu

Received Date: December 11, 2012; Accepted Date: December 12, 2012; Published Date: January 02, 2013

Citation: Kumar SP, Adhikari P, D’Souza SC, Sisodia V (2013) Diabetic Foot: Are Existing Clinical Practice Guidelines Evidence-Informed? Clin Res Foot Ankle 1:e101. doi: 10.4172/2329-910X.1000e101

Copyright: © 2013 Kumar SP, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle

Abstract

The objective of this editorial was to provide an overview of role of existing clinical practice guidelines on diabetic foot- its diagnosis and management from an evidence-informed perspective. Various organizations and focused research groups such as The Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society, International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot, American College of Foot and Ankle Orthopaedics and Medicine, American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons, Tucson Expert Consensus Conference and Infectious Disease Society of America had published a total of eight clinical practice guidelines. Whilst the existing guidelines were focused both on assessment and treatment, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial perspective is however lacking in spite of the ensuing evidence-informed paradigm shift.

Keywords

Practice guidelines; Diabetic foot syndrome; Evidenceinformed practice; Critical appraisal

Introduction

Diabetic foot syndrome is a clinical state recognized in individuals with diabetes mellitus, which is characterized by infections, ulcers, arthropathy and peripheral vascular disease [1]. “Is there an evidence base for diabetic foot care?” [2] Yes, the evidence base for evaluation and management of diabetic foot is increasing in number, with many systematic reviews available on its classification [3], imaging [4], scoring systems [5], risk factors [6], and also on prevention, diagnosis and treatment [7] using patient education [8], electrophysical modalities [9], orthotic insoles [10], total contact casts [11], hyperbaric oxygen therapy [12], antibiotic therapy [13,14], topical agents such as honey [15] and silver-based wound dressings [16], platelet-rich plasma gel [17], Negative pressure wound therapy [18,19], vacuum assisted closure therapy [20], surgical debridement [21], endovascular methods [22], skin replacement therapies [23], biomarkers [24] and so on.

The volumes of literature on diabetic foot in terms of systematic reviews warrant the necessity for clinical practice guidelines both for assessment and treatment along an evidence-based protocol [25]. Evidence-based/ evidence-informed approach to diabetic foot care thus emphasizes a comprehensive multidisciplinary management utilizing an interprofessional teamwork along a holistic biopsychosocial model [26]. Such evidence would not only reflect current practice but also provide better research evidence to practice [27]. The objective of this editorial was to provide an overview of role of existing clinical practice guidelines on diagnosis and management of diabetic foot from an evidence-informed perspective.

Methodology

A non-systematic approach to literature search was performed through PubMed using following search methods. “Diabetic foot” was searched in Title with search filters activated for guideline or practice guideline to obtain relevant records published in English language with their content available in abstracts.

Data extraction and synthesis

The obtained guidelines were evaluated and summarized both for their source and content.

Main findings

There were a total of seven guidelines which were indexed as eight records under article type ‘practice guideline’ or ‘guideline’ for diabetic foot in PubMed database.

Guideline#1: In 1999, the Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society has developed guidelines for implementing prophylactic diabetic foot care. The guidelines comprised of following information: screening for patients who are at risk for developing diabetic foot complications, patient education, basic treatment guidelines, referral guidelines, and resources [28].

Guideline#2: In 1999 the International Consensus was published by a group of independent experts named as the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot [29].

Guideline#3: In 2000, the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons and American College of Foot and Ankle Orthopaedics and Medicine had jointly presented a Clinical Practice Guideline for three diabetic foot disorders (diabetic foot ulcers, diabetic foot infections and diabetic Charcot neuropathic osteoarthropathy). This guideline emphasized the implementation of a multidisciplinary team approach to patient management [30].

Guideline#4: is a duplicate record for guideline#3 [31].

Guideline#5: In 2005, the Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society has developed guidelines for the implementation of prophylactic foot care which includes a comprehensive evaluation- screening examination for peripheral neuropathy, skin integrity, ulcers or wounds, deformity, vascular insufficiency, and footwear; individualized foot-specific patient education; and, a multi-faceted treatment comprising of patient education, orthoses, footwear, and a timetable for ongoing skin and nail care. This guideline also emphasized the implementation of a multidisciplinary team approach to patient management [32].

Guideline#6: In 2004, a multidisciplinary expert panel convened at the Tucson Expert Consensus Conference (TECC) to determine appropriate use of negative pressure wound therapy as delivered by a Vacuum Assisted Closure device (V.A.C. Therapy, KCI, San Antonio, Texas) in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds. The Miami consensus panel discussed the following 12 key issues regarding V.A.C. Therapy: dosage and duration of therapy, wound debridement, outpatient evaluation, revascularization, incision, drainage, and debridement, active soft tissue infection, osteomyelitis, noncompliance, combination therapy, small wounds management, successful outcome, and combined effective offloading and VAC Therapy [33].

Guideline#7: In 2006, revision of the year 2000 guideline (#3,4) was done with updated evidence from recent research. This guideline focused on assessment and treatment of Foot ulcerations, infections, Charcot neuroarthropathy, and peripheral arterial disease in diabetic foot [34].

Guideline#8: In 2012, Infectious Diseases Society of America provided the guideline for diagnosis and treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections (DFI). The DFI were classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). Evaluation often comprises of organism-specific testing and tissue culture, and imaging. Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). This guideline also emphasized the implementation of a multidisciplinary team approach to patient management [35].

Various institutions, committees, organizations and focused research groups such as The Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society, International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot, American College of Foot and Ankle Orthopaedics and Medicine, American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons, Tucson Expert Consensus Conference and Infectious Disease Society of America had published a total of seven clinical practice guidelines.

Conclusion

There is a dearth need to summarize the existing guidelines [36] on diabetic foot and revise them with updated evidence for medical, surgical and allied therapeutic interventions, in order to develop global consensus guideline along an evidence-informed multidisciplinary biopsychosocial approach [37].

References

1. Goulionis JE, Vozikis A, Benos V, Nikolakis D (2010) On the decision rules of cost-effective treatment for patients with diabetic foot syndrome. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2: 121-126.
2. Foster AV (2002) Is there an evidence base for diabetic foot care? J Tissue Viability 12: 113-117.
3. Armstrong DG (1996) The University of Texas Diabetic Foot Classification System. Ostomy Wound Manage 42: 60-61.
4. Capriotti G, Chianelli M, Signore A (2006) Nuclear medicine imaging of diabetic foot infection: results of meta-analysis. Nucl Med Commun 27: 757-764.
5. Karthikesalingam A, Holt PJ, Moxey P, Jones KG, Thompson MM, et al. (2010) A systematic review of scoring systems for diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med 27: 544-549.
6. Margolis DJ, Kantor J, Santanna J, Strom BL, Berlin JA (2000) Risk factors for delayed healing of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a pooled analysis. Arch Dermatol 136: 1531-1535.
7. Inlow S, Orsted H, Sibbald RG (2000) Best practices for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage 46: 55-68.
8. Valk GD, Kriegsman DM, Assendelft WJ (2002) Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. A systematic review. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 31: 633-658.
9. Kwan RL, Cheing GL, Vong SK, Lo SK (2012) Electrophysical therapy for managing diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review. Int Wound J doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01085.x.
10. Paton J, Bruce G, Jones R, Stenhouse E (2011) Effectiveness of insoles used for the prevention of ulceration in the neuropathic diabetic foot: a systematic review. J Diabetes Complications 25: 52-62.
11. Pizarro-Duhart G (2005) Treatment of diabetic foot ulcers with total contact casts: a critical review of the current literature. J Wound Care 14: 469-470.
12. Neal MS (2001) Benefits of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot lesions. J Wound Care 10: 507-509.
13. Lipsky BA (1999) Evidence-based antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 26: 267-276.
14. Nelson EA, O'Meara S, Golder S, Dalton J, Craig D, et al. (2006) Systematic review of antimicrobial treatments for diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med 23: 348-359.
15. Eddy JJ, Gideonsen MD, Mack GP (2008) Practical considerations of using topical honey for neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a review. WMJ 107: 187-190.
16. Bergin SM, Wraight P (2006) Silver based wound dressings and topical agents for treating diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 25: CD005082.
17. Dougherty EJ (2008) An evidence-based model comparing the cost-effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma gel to alternative therapies for patients with nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care 21: 568-575.
18. Armstrong DG, Attinger CE, Boulton AJ, Frykberg RG, Kirsner RS, et al (2004) Guidelines regarding negative wound therapy (NPWT) in the diabetic foot. Ostomy Wound Manage 50(4B Suppl): 3S-27S.
19. Suess JJ, Kim PJ, Steinberg JS (2006) Negative pressure wound therapy: evidence-based treatment for complex diabetic foot wounds. Curr Diab Rep 6: 446-450.
20. Eneroth M, van Houtum WH (2008) The value of debridement and Vacuum-Assisted Closure (V.A.C.) Therapy in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 24 Suppl 1: S76-80.
21. Edwards J, Stapley S (2010) Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003556.
22. Peeters P, Keirse K, Verbist J, Deloose K, Bosiers M (2009) Other endovascular methods of treating the diabetic foot. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 53: 313-321.
23. Blozik E, Scherer M (2008) Skin replacement therapies for diabetic foot ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 31: 693-694.
24. Cruciani M, Lipsky BA, Mengoli C, de Lalla F (2005) Are granulocyte colony-stimulating factors beneficial in treating diabetic foot infections?: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 28: 454-460.
25. Brem H, Sheehan P, Rosenberg HJ, Schneider JS, Boulton AJ (2006) Evidence-based protocol for diabetic foot ulcers. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(7 Suppl): 193S-209S.
26. Frykberg RG (2003) An evidence-based approach to diabetic foot infections. Am J Surg 186(5A): 44S-54S.
27. Ndip A, Ebah L, Mbako A (2012) Neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers - evidence-to-practice. Int J Gen Med 5: 129-134.
28. Pinzur MS, Slovenkai MP, Trepman E (1999) Guidelines for diabetic foot care. The Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Foot Ankle Int 20: 695-702.
29. Apelqvist J, Bakker K, van Houtum WH, Nabuurs-Franssen MH, Schaper NC (2000) International consensus and practical guidelines on the management and the prevention of the diabetic foot. International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 16 Suppl 1: S84-92.
30. Frykberg RG, Armstrong DG, Giurini J, Edwards A, Kravette M, et al (2000) Diabetic foot disorders. A clinical practice guideline. For the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons and the American College of Foot and Ankle Orthopedics and Medicine. J Foot Ankle Surg: 1-60.
31. Frykberg RG, Armstrong DG, Giurini J, Edwards A, Kravette M, et al. (2000) Diabetic foot disorders: a clinical practice guideline. American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. J Foot Ankle Surg 39: S1-S60.
32. Pinzur MS, Slovenkai MP, Trepman E, Shields NN; Diabetes Committee of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (2005) Guidelines for diabetic foot care: recommendations endorsed by the Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Foot Ankle Int 26: 113-119.
33. Andros G, Armstrong DG, Attinger CE, Boulton AJ, Frykberg RG, et al. (2006) Consensus statement on negative pressure wound therapy (V.A.C. Therapy) for the management of diabetic foot wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage: 1-32.
34. Frykberg RG, Zgonis T, Armstrong DG, Driver VR, Giurini JM, et al. (2006) Diabetic foot disorders. A clinical practice guideline (2006 revision). J Foot Ankle Surg 45: S1-S66.
35. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, Pile JC, Peters EJ, et al. (2012) 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 54: e132-e173.
36. Frykberg RG (2005) A summary of guidelines for managing the diabetic foot. Adv Skin Wound Care 18: 209-214.
37. Apelqvist J, Bakker K, van Houtum WH, Schaper NC; International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Editorial Board (2008) The development of global consensus guidelines on the management of the diabetic foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 24: S116-S118.