Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle
Open Access

Diabetes mellitus; chronic metabolic disorder; Global health concern; Chronic ulcers; Osteomyelitis

Introduction

The pathophysiology of bone complications in diabetic feet involves a complex interplay of factors such as neuropathy, microvascular changes, and immune system dysfunction. Osteomyelitis is a common sequel, often necessitating surgical intervention for both infection control and structural reconstruction. Traditional approaches to bone reconstruction, such as autografts and allografts, have shown limited success in diabetic patients due to compromised vascularity and impaired healing capacity. Recent advancements in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering have opened new avenues for addressing bone defects in diabetic foot cases. The use of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs), growth factors, and scaffolds has shown promising results in enhancing bone regeneration. Additionally, innovative techniques such as 3D printing and bioactive materials are being explored to provide patient-specific solutions for bone reconstruction in diabetic foot cases [1].

Description

Pathophysiology of bone complications

Explores the intricate mechanisms involved in the development of bone complications in diabetic foot patients. Discusses the impact of neuropathy, microvascular changes, and immune system dysfunction on bone health [2].

Traditional approaches to bone reconstruction

Reviews conventional methods such as autografts and allografts in addressing bone defects. Analyzes the limitations of traditional approaches, particularly in the context of compromised vascularity and impaired healing in diabetic patients [3].

Advances in regenerative medicine

Examines the role of regenerative medicine in bone reconstruction, emphasizing the use of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) and growth factors. Discusses the potential of tissue engineering and innovative biomaterials to enhance bone regeneration [4,5].

Technological innovations

Explores emerging technologies like 3D printing and bioactive materials, providing patient-specific solutions for bone reconstruction. Evaluates the feasibility and efficacy of these technologies in the diabetic foot context [7,8].

Multidisciplinary approach

Emphasizes the importance of a collaborative approach involving various healthcare professionals, including endocrinologists, podiatrists, orthopedic surgeons, and wound care specialists [9]. Stresses the need for early detection, comprehensive wound care, and aggressive treatment strategies [10].

Conclusion

By providing a thorough examination of both conventional and contemporary strategies, this comprehensive review aims to contribute to the evolving understanding of diabetic foot complications and guide future research and clinical practices in the reconstruction of bone in diabetic patients.

1. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Hoag RH, Sivilotti ML, Cacciotti TF, et al. (1997) Implementation of the Ottawa Knee Rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA. 278: 2075-2079.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

2. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, McKnight RD, et al. (1995) Derivation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 26: 405-113.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Keyhani S, Kazemi SM, Ahn JH, Verdonk R, Soleymanha M (2019) Arthroscopic treatment of diffuse pigmented villonodular synovitis of the knee: complete synovectomy and septum removal—midterm results. J Knee Surg. 32: 427-433.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Kazemi SM, Minaei R, Safdari F, Keipourfard A, Forghani R, et al. (2016) Supracondylar osteotomy in valgus knee: angle blade plate versus locking compression plate. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 4: 29.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

5. Stiell IG, Wells GA, McDowell I, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, et al. (1995) Use of radiography in acute knee injuries: need for clinical decision rules. Acad Emerg Med. 2: 966-973.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, Mc Dowell I, Cwinn AA, et al. (1996) Prospective validation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA. 275: 611-615.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

7. Seaberg DC, Jackson R (1994) Clinical decision rule for knee radiographs. Am J Emerg Med. 12: 541-543.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Seaberg DC, Yealy DM, Lukens T, Auble T, Mathias S (1998) Multicenter comparison of two clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute, high-risk knee injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 32: 8-13.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Mohamed A, Babikir E, Mustafa MKE (2020) Ottawa Knee Rule: Investigating Use and Application in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital. Cureus. 12: e8812.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Beutel BG, Trehan SK, Shalvoy RM, Mello MJ (2012) The Ottawa knee rule: examining use in an academic emergency department. West J Emerg Med. 13: 366.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Emparanza JI, Aginaga JR (2001) Validation of the Ottawa knee rules. Ann Emerg Med. 38: 364-368.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

12. Ketelslegers E, Collard X, Vande Berg B, Danse E, ElGariani A, et al. (2002) Validation of the Ottawa knee rules in an emergency teaching centre. Eur Radiol. 12: 1218-1220.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref