The role of amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity in the risk for diabetic ulceration classification systems building: a cross-sectional and case-control pilot investigation

The role of amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity in the risk for diabetic ulceration classification systems building: a cross-sectional and case-control pilot investigation

Aristomenis Kossioris^1,&, Nicholas Tentolouris², Chariclia V Loupa³, Minos Tyllianakis⁴

 

¹Department of Neurology, General Hospital of Athens "G. Gennimatas"; School of Medicine, University of Patras, Rio, Greece, ²First Department of Propaedeutic and Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Laiko" General Hospital, Athens, Greece, ³"Demetrios Voyatzoglou" Diabetic Foot Clinic, "A. Fleming" General Hospital, Athens, Greece, ⁴Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Rio, Greece

 

 

^&Corresponding author
Aristomenis Kossioris, Department of Neurology, General Hospital of Athens "G. Gennimatas" School of Medicine, University of Patras, Rio, Greece

 

 

 

 

The development of ulcers, of catalytic etiology either intrinsic (e.g resulting from high plantar pressures due to prominent metatarsal heads) or extrinsic (e.g. resulting from a pebble during walking shoeless) [1], at feet of persons with diabetes (diabetic foot ulceration, DFU), can bring about serious complications both individually (amputation-related disability and increased mortality) and socially (economic burden of the health systems) [2]. According to the epidemiologic studies, the DFU risk factors that predominantly have been identified include peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), structural foot deformities (hammer toes, claw toes, etc) and the history of amputation and/or previous ulceration [1, 2]. DFU is preventable applying appropriate interventions, therefore, various, but slightly different, risk classification systems with predictive value have been developed [2-4].

 

In literature [2, 4-13], foot structural deformities have been studied as risk factor for:

 

• First ulcer/s [6, 7]

 

• First ulcer(s) and recurrent ulcer(s) [8, 9] and

 

• Recurrent ulcer(s) [10, 13].

 

The foot deformities per se, have been administered by the researchers either as two separate entity groups:

 

• Amputations (amputative deformities) and/or

 

• Structural or foot deformities (non-amputative deformities) [6-10] or as a single entity group [13]:

 

• Structural or foot deformities (amputative and non-amputative deformities together).

 

The terms amputative and non-amputative, concerning the separation of amputations from the rest foot deformities in people with diabetes, are more accurate in relation to a potential use of the terms "extrinsic" for amputations and "intrinsic" for deformities such as claw toes or prominent metatarsal heads. A non-amputative deformity could have a cause outside of diabetic neuropathy, which is an intrinsic factor (e.g. hammer toes can be a result of trauma or inappropriate shoes) [14]. Foot deformities and their severity are parameters that have been studied in the past as risk factors for ulceration development in patients with diabetes [6, 9]. Although, the terms foot deformities and amputations are confusing in the literature with glaring example the recent IWGDF definitions and risk classification system of 2015 [5], in which amputations once is included in the term foot deformity (IWGDF definitions, p. 17), while another time is not (Table 1, p. 18). Since amputations are also deformities, the administration of foot deformities as a broad variable, including both amputative and non-amputative ones, is more precise. Severity of foot deformities only recently has been studied, precisely and with breadth, as a united variable including both amputative and non-amputative ones [13]. No study yet has examined the amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity as risk factor for DFU in association with the established risk factors (peripheral neuropathy, PAD, history of previous ulceration).

 

The aim of this study was the examination of amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity as risk factor for DFU in relation with the other established risk factors, as well as of the participant' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

 

 

Study design

 

The study was a cross-sectional, case-control research.

 

Setting

 

The research came about at three diabetic foot clinics of general hospitals and one wound unit of a special hospital in a large capital city. Ethics approvals were granted by the hospitals' scientific committees.

 

Subjects

 

The study participants were individuals with type 1 and 2 diabetes and with or without foot ulcers. Patients with cognitive disturbances were excluded from the study.

 

Recruitment

 

One hundred and thirty-four patients were conveniently approached by the head investigators during their scheduled first or subsequent visit to the healthcare facilities, from October 2005 to November 2016. The sample size was calculated implementing approximately the Garson's [15] rule of thumb whereby the number of cases in the smaller of the two binary outcomes in binary logistic regression divided by the number of predictor variables should be at least 20 [15]. All participants were enrolled after providing written informed consent.

 

Data collection

 

For the collection of the data, a structured quantitative interview guide with closed-ended questions was used. The principal researchers interviewed one-on-one each patient gathering and recording demographic and clinical data.

 

Measurements

 

The parameters that were measured were related to:

 

• Sociodemographic characteristics: sex, age (years), companionship status, education level, labor market status and

 

• Clinical characteristics: Diabetes type, diabetes duration (years), treatment type, HbA1c (%), blood glucose level (mg/dL), presence or absence of retinopathy, renal complications, hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (somatic sensorimotor), PAD, amputative foot deformities, non-amputative foot deformities, severity of amputative and non-amputative foot deformities, history of previous foot ulceration, active foot ulceration, risk classification for foot ulceration development and appropriate footwear prevalence.

 

Instrumentation - procedures

 

For the measurement of sociodemographic characteristics, appropriate interview guide items were utilized. The items asked primarily objective information, thus, the interview guide was subjected only to validity investigation. All the interview guide items were tested by applying the face validity method. Regarding the clinical characteristics of diabetes type, diabetes duration, treatment type, HbA1c (%), blood glucose level, presence or absence of retinopathy, renal complications, hypertension, coronary artery disease, active foot ulceration and history of previous foot ulcer(s), initially, appropriate interview guide items were used, and afterwards the researchers confirmed the data's validity by checking the biochemical and hemodynamic tests, as well as the other medical files of the participants. Diabetic foot ulcer was defined as full thickness break of the skin, at least of Wagner stage 1 [16], infected or not and developed distal to the malleoli. As for the loss of protective sensation attributable to peripheral neuropathy, it was diagnosed by applying the 10g monofilament and the vibration perception threshold test [1]. In terms of PAD, the diagnosis was based on duplex ultrasonography with >50% vessel stenosis being indicative [17, 18]. Concerning the foot deformities (both amputative and non-amputative), they were diagnosed by the physicians of the research team by utilizing inspection where needed (e.g. for diagnosing Charcot's neuroarthropathy) by checking previous imaging examinations [1]. Respecting the classification of the amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity, that was founded in the Waaijman et al. [13, 19] guidelines. As for the risk for DFU classification system, the risk classification based on the comprehensive foot examination of Boulton et al. [1, 4] was used. With reference to the prevalence of appropriate footwear, the shoes or aids that were accompanied by literature evidence (comprising expert opinion) concerning effectiveness (conventional off-the-self, semi-customized and customized diabetic shoes or slippers-sandals, running shoes, half-shoes, total contact casts and removable walkers) were counted [20, 21].

 

Data analysis

 

At first, because there were only two observations for the severe category of the Waaijman et al. [13, 19] variable from the small pilot sample and of the fact that the recommended smallest of the classes of the depended variable in a regression model is at least 10 events per parameter [15], the amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity parameter from a four categories variable (none, mild, moderate, severe), yielding high logistic coefficients [15], was altered to a three classes one (none, mild and moderate/severe) with the last two categories combined and following this to a two classes one (none/mild and moderate/severe) with the first and last two categories combined.

 

Statistical analysis

 

Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis took place while utilizing the IBM SPSS 24 software package. Within the bounds of descriptive analysis, the frequencies of the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were estimated. With respect to the inferential statistical analysis, univariate logistic regression analysis for the risk classification system of Boulton et al. [1, 4] risk factors was performed, as well as for both the three and two categories versions of the amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity variable. Subsequently, multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out for examining three regression models:

 

•The first (model 1) with the risk classification system of Boulton et al. [1, 4] risk factors

 

•The second (model 2) with the above factors, but with a replacement of foot deformities and amputations variables with the three categories version of the amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity variable and

 

•The third (model 3) with the same factors, but with the two categories version of the amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity variable instead of the three categories one.

 

For the multivariate regression analyses, the "enter"variable selection method was used and 5% probability criterion was set for the variables to enter the models. After the multivariate regression investigation of the aforesaid variables, and considering that the research purpose was prediction [15], a ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve analysis for compering the yielded models took place.

 

 

Descriptive

 

With regards to the sociodemographic characteristics, 67.9% of the participants were men, with the total sample's mean age being 64.9±12.2. Ninety-two per cent were living with others, 47.9% had just primary and secondary education and the 80.9% were outside of the labor market. As for the clinical characteristics, 92.3% of the study subjects had type 2 diabetes, 57.9% peripheral neuropathy, 40.0% PAD, 43.4% non-amputative foot deformities, while 20.0% amputative foot deformities, 53.3% wore appropriate footwear and of the controls, 51.4% were at no risk for DFU. All the descriptive results are shown in detail in Table 1.

 

Inferential

 

The univariate logistic regression analysis, in terms of the variables that were involved in the three models (1, 2 and 3) was significant (P≤0.05) for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.66-8.70, P=0.002), PAD (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.84-9.32, P=0.001), amputative foot deformities (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.04-7.45, P=0.042), history of previous foot ulceration (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.64-8.77, P=0.002) and moderate/severe foot deformities from the two categories amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity variable (reference category: none/mild) (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.13-6.86, P=0.026) (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4).

 

In regards to the model 1 multivariate logistic regression analysis (MLRA), none significant variable was yielded (Table 2). As for the model 2 and model 3 MLRA, only PAD was significant (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.17-10.82, P=0.025 and OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.10-10.08, P=0.033 respectively) (Table 3, Table 4). Concerning the ROC curve analysis of the three models, model 2 had the greatest area under the ROC curve (0.763, P<0.001) (Figure 1, Table 5).

 

 

Even though this was a small-sized pilot study, given the fact that coping with a problem as common as diabetic foot ulceration necessitates a larger cohort, for testing the feasibility of the methodology that was chosen [22], it managed to bring in useful results.

 

The most important finding of the study was the fact that both models 2 and 3, with the three and two categories amputative and non-amputative foot deformities severity variable, by the ROC curve analysis were shown to have greater areas under the ROC curve (0.763, P<0.001 and 0.754, P<0.001 respectively) than the Boulton et al. -based model's area (model 1) [4] with model 2 showing the greatest difference (0.022) demonstrating the optimal classification, and hence predictive, ability [15].

 

The second most weighty detection of the research was the designation of PAD as a DFU risk factor by the MLRA of both 2 and 3 models variables (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.17-10.82, P=0.025 and OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.10-10.08, P=0.033 respectively). PAD has been identified as a major risk factor for DFU at patients with diabetes feet by several pivotal studies [9, 10, 23, 24].

 

By the univariate logistic regression analysis, the parameters of peripheral neuropathy, PAD, amputative foot deformities and history of previous ulceration, in concordance with the literature [8, 9, 23-26] were discovered to be significantly associated with the presence of active foot ulceration.

 

In terms of the sociodemographic and the clinical characteristics that were not examined in the context of inferential analysis, by the descriptive analysis, the prevalence of wearing appropriate footwear (53.3%) was in consonance with the literature [27-30], in which the prevalence in question was calculated to be 52% [21].

 

 

A single, united variable for lower extremity amputations and other foot deformities with reference to their severity and with ≥2 severity classes, could be more helpful to the clinicians in identifying patients with diabetes at risk for foot ulceration.

 

New, improved classification or stratification systems for predicting intents, replacing established ones, are emerging constantly in the literature [31]. Therefore, we encourage the diabetic foot-related scientific associations to consider the possibility of modifying the current risk for DFU classification systems according to the findings of the present investigation or future, more powered, relevant studies.

 

 

The authors declare that there are no competing interests.

 

 

Aristomenis Kossioris collected and analyzed the data, as well as he wrote the bulk of the article. Nicholas Tentolouris helped with the data collection, the writing of the abstract and he consulted regarding the methodology and statistical analysis. Chariclia V Loupa helped regarding the data collection and she contributed to tables writing. Minos Tyllianakis contributed to writing the Methods section, to formatting the manuscript, as well as he had the overall supervision of the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

 

 

Table 1: frequencies of patients with diabetic foot disease characteristics

Table 2: univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for the comprehensive foot examination classification system DFU risk factors with two foot deformities-related variables; model 1

Table 3: univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for the comprehensive foot examination classification system DFU risk factors with a single foot deformities-related variable and three categories of severity (none, mild and moderate/severe); model 2

Table 4: univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for the comprehensive foot examination classification system DFU risk factors with a single foot deformities-related variable and two categories of severity (none/mild and moderate/severe); model 3

Table 5: areas under the ROC curves

Figure 1: ROC curve analysis for the three predicting models

 

 

1. Boulton AJM. Pathogenesis of diabetic foot complications. In: Clinical care of the diabetic foot [Kindle version]. American Diabetes Association. 2016. Retrieved from Amazon.com.


2. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293(2):217-228. PubMed | Google Scholar


3. Peters EJ, Lavery LA. Effectiveness of the diabetic foot risk classification system of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(8):1442-1447. PubMed | Google Scholar


4. Boulton AJ, Armstrong DG, Albert SF, Frykberg RG, Hellman R, Kirkman MS et al. 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. PubMed


5. Bus SA, van Netten JJ, Lavery LA, Monteiro-Soares M, Rasmussen A, Jubiz Y et al. IWGDF guidance on the prevention of foot ulcers in at-risk patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32 Suppl 1:16-24. PubMed | Google Scholar


6. de Sonnaville JJ, Colly LP, Wijkel D, Heine RJ. The prevalence and determinants of foot ulceration in type II diabetic patients in a primary health care setting. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1997;35(2-3):149-156. PubMed | Google Scholar


7. Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ, del Aguila M, Smith DG, Lavery LA et al. Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(1):157-162. PubMed | Google Scholar


8. Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Stensel V, Forsberg RC, Davignon DR, Smith DG. A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer. The Seattle Diabetic Foot Study. Diabetes Care.1999;22(7):1036-1042. PubMed | Google Scholar


9. Abbott CA, Carrington AL, Ashe H, Bath S, Every LC, Griffiths J et al. The North-West Diabetes Foot Care Study: incidence of, and risk factors for, new diabetic foot ulceration in a community-based patient cohort. Diabet Med. 2002;19(5):377-384. PubMed | Google Scholar


10. Peters EJ, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Risk factors for recurrent diabetic foot ulcers: site matters. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(8):2077-2079. PubMed | Google Scholar


11. Lavery LA, Lavery DC, Quebedeax-Farnham TL. Increased foot pressures after great toe amputation in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1995;18(11):1460-1462. PubMed | Google Scholar


12. Lavery LA, Vela SA, Lavery DC, Quebedeaux TL. Reducing dynamic foot pressures in high-risk diabetic subjects with foot ulcerations. A comparison of treatments. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(8):818-821. PubMed | Google Scholar


13. Waaijman R, de Haart M, Arts ML, Wever D, Verlouw AJ, Nollet F. Risk factors for plantar foot ulcer recurrence in neuropathic diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(6):1697-1705. PubMed | Google Scholar


14. Dhukaram V, Hossain S, Sampath J, Barrie JL. Correction of hammer toe with an extended release of the metatarsophalangeal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(7):986-990. PubMed | Google Scholar


15. Garson D. Logistic Regression: Binary & Multinomial. Statistical Associates Publishing; 2016.


16. Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Harkless LB. Classification of diabetic foot wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1997;43(2):44-48, 50, 52-53. PubMed | Google Scholar


17. European Stroke Organisation, Tendera M, Aboyans V, Bartelink ML, Baumgartner I, Clément D et al. ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery diseases: Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries: the Task Force on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Artery Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2011;32(22): 2851-2906. PubMed | Google Scholar


18. Collins R, Cranny G, Burch J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Craig D, Wright K et al. A systematic review of duplex ultrasound, magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease. Health Technol Assess. 2007; 11(20): iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1-184. PubMed | Google Scholar


19. Waaijman R, Keukenkamp R, de Haart M, Polomski WP, Nollet F, Bus SA. Adherence to wearing prescription custom-made footwear in patients with diabetes at high risk for plantar foot ulceration. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(6):1613-1618. PubMed | Google Scholar


20. Cavanagh PR, Bus SA. Off-loading the diabetic foot for ulcer prevention and healing. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(3 Suppl):37S-43S.


21. Kossioris A, Tentolouris N, Kyriazopoulou V, Chariclia V Loupa, Markou G, Marakomichelakis GE et al. Initial and continued adherence to wearing appropriate footwear in people with diabetic foot disease: results of a pilot study. Hellenic Journal of Nursing Science. 2017;10(4):21-28. Google Scholar


22. Van Teijlingen E, Hundley V. The importance of pilot studies. Nurs Stand. 2002;16(40):33-6. PubMed | Google Scholar


23. Iversen MM, Midthjell K, Østbye T, Tell GS, Clipp E, Sloane R et al. History of and factors associated with diabetic foot ulcers in Norway: the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Scand J Public Health. 2008;36(1):62-68. PubMed | Google Scholar


24. Baba M, Davis WA, Davis TM. A longitudinal study of foot ulceration and its risk factors in community-based patients with type 2 diabetes: the Fremantle Diabetes Study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;106(1):42-49. PubMed | Google Scholar


25. Ndip A, Rutter MK, Vileikyte L, Vardhan A, Asari A, Jameel M et al. Dialysis treatment is an independent risk factor for foot ulceration in patients with diabetes and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(8):1811-1816. PubMed | Google Scholar


26. Moura Neto A, Zantut-Wittmann DE, Fernandes TD, Nery M, Parisi MC. Risk factors for ulceration and amputation in diabetic foot: study in a cohort of 496 patients. Endocrine. 2013;44(1):119-124. PubMed | Google Scholar


27. Chantelau E, Haage P. An audit of cushioned diabetic footwear: relation to patient compliance. Diabet Med. 1994;11(1):114-116. PubMed | Google Scholar


28. Macfarlane DJ, Jensen JL. Factors in diabetic footwear compliance. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003;93(6):485-491. PubMed | Google Scholar


29. Churchman N. A retrospective audit of footwear use by high-risk individuals in North Derbyshire. Diabetic Foot J. 2008;11(1):10-15. Google Scholar


30. Arts ML, de Haart M, Bus SA, Bakker JP, Hacking HG, Nollet F. Perceived usability and use of custom-made footwear in diabetic patients at high risk for foot ulceration. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(4):357-362. PubMed | Google Scholar


31. Yuen N, O'Shaughnessy P, Thomson A. New classification system for indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography predicts diagnoses and adverse events. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52(12):1457-1465. PubMed | Google Scholar