Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle
Open Access

Diabetic foot ulcers; Peripheral neuropathy; Autonomic dysfunction; Epidemiological landscape

Introduction

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) represent one of the most serious complications of diabetes mellitus, posing significant challenges to patients' health and healthcare systems globally. Central to the development of DFUs are peripheral neuropathy and foot disease, which significantly increase the risk of ulceration and subsequent complications. In this article, we delve into the epidemiology of peripheral neuropathy and foot disease in diabetic foot ulcers, exploring their prevalence, risk factors, and impact on patient outcomes [1].

Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy

Peripheral neuropathy, characterized by nerve damage in the extremities, is a common complication of diabetes. According to epidemiological studies, up to 50% of individuals with diabetes develop peripheral neuropathy during their lifetime. The prevalence of neuropathy increases with the duration and severity of diabetes, with rates higher in individuals with poor glycemic control and those with comorbidities such as hypertension and dyslipidemia [2,3].

Risk factors for peripheral neuropathy

Several factors contribute to the development of peripheral neuropathy in diabetes. Prolonged hyperglycemia is a primary risk factor, as elevated blood glucose levels can lead to nerve damage over time. Other contributing factors include advanced age, smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and genetic predisposition. Additionally, poorly managed diabetes-related complications, such as nephropathy and retinopathy, can exacerbate neuropathic symptoms [4].

Impact on dfu development

Peripheral neuropathy plays a central role in the pathogenesis of DFUs by impairing sensation and proprioception in the feet. Loss of protective sensation increases the risk of trauma and injury, as patients may not perceive pain from minor cuts, blisters, or pressure points [5]. Moreover, autonomic neuropathy disrupts sweat gland function, leading to dry, cracked skin prone to fissures and ulceration. The combination of sensory and autonomic neuropathy creates a perfect storm for DFU development, particularly in the presence of foot deformities or vascular compromise [6].

Prevalence of foot disease

Foot disease, including deformities, calluses, and vascular insufficiency, is highly prevalent in individuals with diabetes. Epidemiological studies have reported foot deformities in up to 50% of diabetes patients, with conditions such as Charcot neuroarthropathy, hammertoes, and claw toes being common [7,8]. Calluses, caused by abnormal pressure distribution and gait abnormalities, affect approximately 40-60% of diabetes patients and are a significant risk factor for ulceration.

Impact on dfu outcomes

Foot disease significantly influences the course and outcomes of DFUs, exacerbating the risk of complications such as infection and lower extremity amputation. Deformities and structural abnormalities increase mechanical stress on the feet, leading to the formation of pressure points and ulcers. Moreover, vascular insufficiency compromises tissue perfusion and impairs wound healing, further complicating DFU management [9,10].

Conclusion

Peripheral neuropathy and foot disease are critical determinants in the development and progression of diabetic foot ulcers, contributing to significant morbidity and healthcare burden. Understanding the epidemiology of these conditions is essential for identifying at-risk individuals, implementing preventive measures, and optimizing DFU management strategies. Multidisciplinary approaches that address neuropathy, foot deformities, and vascular compromise are essential for reducing the incidence of DFUs and improving patient outcomes. By addressing the underlying risk factors and complications associated with peripheral neuropathy and foot disease, healthcare providers can mitigate the burden of DFUs and enhance the quality of life for individuals living with diabetes.

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, McDowell 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