Home  ›  when teaching the diabetic client about foot care, what should the nurse instruct the client to do?

when teaching the diabetic client about foot care, what should the nurse instruct the client to do?

Written By Monday, April 4, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview

Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee

John M. Embil Doctor, FRCPC, FACP, Zaina Albalawi MD, FRCPC, Keith Bowering MD, FRCPC, FACP, Elly Trepman MD

Anchored Listing of chapter sections

  1. Key Messages
  2. Fundamental Messages for People with Diabetes
  3. Introduction
  4. Risk Cess
  5. Preventive Care and Handling
  6. Other Relevant Guidelines
  7. Relevant Appendices
  8. Author Disclosures

1. Key Letters

  • Lower extremity complications are a major cause of morbidity and bloodshed in people with diabetes.
  • The treatment of foot ulcers in people who have diabetes requires an interprofessional arroyo that addresses glycemic control, infection, off-loading of high-force per unit area areas, lower-extremity vascular status and local wound care.
  • Antibiotic therapy is not required for uninfected neuropathic pes ulcers.
  • Proprietary adjunctive wound dressings and technologies, including antimicrobial dressings, lack sufficient evidence to back up routine use in the treatment of neuropathic ulcers.

two. Key Messages for People with Diabetes

  • Diabetes can cause nervus damage (also known as "diabetic peripheral neuropathy") and poor blood menstruation or circulation to the legs and anxiety (also known as "peripheral arterial illness").
  • As a result, people with diabetes are less likely to experience a human foot injury, such as a blister or cutting. Diabetes can make these injuries more hard to heal. Unnoticed and untreated, even small foot injuries tin quickly become infected, potentially leading to serious complications.
  • A adept daily pes care routine may assistance go on your feet healthy:
    • Examine your feet and legs daily
    • Care for your nails regularly
    • Employ moisturizing lotion if your feet are dry (but not between the toes)
    • Wear properly plumbing fixtures footwear
    • Examination your bathroom h2o with your hand before you pace in, to brand sure the water is not too hot
  • If you lot have any corns (thick or hard skin on toes), calluses (thick skin on bottom of feet), ingrown toenails, warts, splinters or other wounds, take them treated past your doctor or other foot care specialist (such equally a human foot intendance nurse, podiatrist or chiropodist). Practise not endeavour to care for them yourself.
  • If you have any swelling, warmth, redness or pain in your legs or feet, see your wellness-care provider or pes specialist right abroad.

3. Introduction

Pes complications are a major cause of morbidity and bloodshed in people who accept diabetes, and contribute to increased wellness care use and costs (1–vii). People with diabetes who take peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease are at adventure of developing foot ulcers and infection that may lead to lower-extremity amputation (8–eleven). The frequency of amputation is much higher in people with diabetes than people without diabetes (12,thirteen). This is especially truthful in developed nations, such equally Canada, where adults with diabetes accept 20-fold greater likelihood of being hospitalized for nontraumatic lower limb amputation than adults without diabetes (14). In the The states, the frequency of lower-extremity amputation decreased by 28.8% from 2000 to 2010, but the apply of other orthopedic treatments for diabetic pes ulcers increased by 143% during this flow (15). Preventive measures, human foot care education, and early and aggressive handling of diabetic foot bug are important components of diabetes care.

4. Risk Assessment

Risk factors for developing pes ulcers in people with diabetes include peripheral neuropathy, previous ulcer or amputation, structural deformity, express joint mobility, peripheral arterial disease, microvascular complications, increased levels of glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and onychomycosis (xvi,17). Loss of sensation to the 10 g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament at the plantar surface of the foot is a significant and independent predictor of futurity foot ulcer and lower-extremity amputation (eighteen–20).

Several wound classifications accept been developed to provide objective cess of foot ulcer severity. The simple Wagner nomenclature is used commonly: Wagner Grade 0, pare intact; Grade 1, superficial ulcer; Grade 2, ulcer extending to tendon, sheathing or bone; Grade 3, deep ulcer with osteomyelitis or abscess; Grade 4, gangrene of toes or forefoot; Grade 5, gangrene of midfoot or hindfoot. The University of Texas Diabetic Wound Nomenclature System has been validated as a predictor of serious outcomes in people with diabetes who have pes ulcers (21,22) (Table 1).

In people who take ischemia, the distribution of peripheral arterial illness is greater in the arterial tree beneath the knee in people with diabetes compared with people without diabetes (23). Noninvasive assessments for peripheral arterial disease in people with diabetes include the blood pressure (BP) talocrural joint-brachial index (ratio of talocrural joint to brachial systolic BP), systolic toe pressure past photoplethysmography, transcutaneous oximetry and Doppler arterial flow studies (24,25). Although the ankle-brachial index in some clinical settings is a readily available and piece of cake-to-perform technique, it may underestimate the degree of peripheral arterial obstacle because of medial arterial wall calcification in lower-extremity arteries (26,27). Photoplethysmography assesses the intensity of light reflected from the skin surface and red blood cells, which is indicative of arteriolar pulse flow; measurement of systolic toe pressure by photoplethysmography may be more authentic than ankle-brachial alphabetize in determining the presence of arterial affliction in people with diabetes (28).

It is important to recognize the potential limitations inherent with noninvasive diagnostic tests for peripheral arterial disease (29,30). Other studies that are bachelor for the evaluation of lower-limb ischemia that practise not crave arterial admission include intra-arterial digital subtraction dissimilarity arteriography, magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomographic angiography, but these studies may be complicated by contrast-induced renal failure or gadolinium-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (31–35). Consultation with a specialist in vascular medicine or surgery should be undertaken as shortly as possible for people who have suspected lower extremity ischemia (30,36).

The foot examination is important and should include footwear assessment (19,37,38) (Table two). Assessment of skin temperature is important because increased warmth may indicate the presence of inflammation or acute Charcot neuroarthropathy in a foot that has lost protective sensation (39–41). In addition, erythema and swelling may be indicators of cellulitis or Charcot neuroarthropathy (42,43). The clinical and radiographic differentiation betwixt astute Charcot foot and infection may be difficult (44). Plain radiographs have depression sensitivity and specificity in differentiating osteomyelitis from Charcot changes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the foot may help clarify this differential diagnosis, but no diagnostic imaging studies are definitive, and the results of all imaging studies must be interpreted carefully and correlated with the clinical presentation (45,46).

Table i
University of Texas Diabetic Wound Classification Organisation
*Adapted from reference 21.
Stage Grade
0 I Ii Three
A (no infection or ischemia) Pre- or mail-ulcerative lesion completely epithelialized Superficial wound non involving tendon, capsule, or bone Wound penetrating to tendon or sheathing Wound penetrating to os or joint
B Infection Infection Infection Infection
C Ischemia Ischemia Ischemia Ischemia
D Infection and ischemia Infection and ischemia Infection and ischemia Infection and ischemia
Table 2
Cardinal elements of the lower extremity physical test*
*Adapted from references 19 and 38 to 43.
**See Appendix 12. Monofilament Testing in the Diabetic Foot.
Element Parameter
Inspection
  • Gait
  • Foot morphology (Charcot arthropathy, bony prominences)
  • Toe morphology (clawtoe, hammertoe, number of toes)
  • Skin: blisters, abrasions, calluses, subkeratotic hematomas or hemorrhage, ulcers, absence of hair, toe smash problems, edema, abnormal colour
  • Condition of nails
  • Foot hygiene (cleanliness, tinea pedis)
Palpation
  • Pedal pulses
  • Temperature (increased or decreased warmth)
Protective awareness
  • Sensation to ten g monofilament**
Footwear
  • Exterior: signs of wear, penetrating objects
  • Interior: signs of article of clothing, orthotics, foreign bodies

five. Preventive Care and Treatment

Preventive measures confronting the risk of amputation include regular foot test, evaluation of amputation adventure, regular callus debridement, patient education, professionally fitted therapeutic footwear to reduce plantar pressure and adjust foot deformities, and early on detection and handling of diabetic foot ulcers (47,48). Many studies that have assessed interventions to preclude and treat diabetic foot ulcers have had limited quality of supportive prove because of problems in report design and methods (49,fifty). Withal, the treatment of pes ulcers typically is nigh effective with an interprofessional approach and includes measures to ameliorate glycemic control, subtract mechanical force per unit area with off-loading, care for infection, ensure adequate lower-extremity arterial inflow and provide local wound care (51–55).

Specific recommendations virtually wound dressing types cannot be made for typical diabetic pes ulcers considering there is insufficient evidence to support any type of dressing over another (56–lx). The essentials of expert wound care include maintaining an optimal wound environment, off-loading pressure level from the ulcer and regular debridement of nonviable tissue (58,61,62); wound dressings that maintain a physiologically moist wound environment should exist selected. There are insufficient information to support the use of specific dressing types or antimicrobial dressings in the routine treatment of diabetic pes wounds (48,51–59). In that location is as well insufficient evidence to make any recommendation nearly the role of suction wound dressings (referred to as "negative pressure level wound therapy") in the routine handling of neuropathic wounds, just there is some testify in favour of suction wound dressings for more advanced diabetic foot ulcers or after extensive debridement (58,61,63–66). Other adjunctive measures for wound healing, such as topical growth factors and dermal substitutes, take been evaluated for the treatment of diabetic pes ulcers, but the studies have been limited in sample size, elapsing and follow up, and the results are not sufficiently conclusive to support the use of these therapies (57,58,67–70).

Pressure off-loading may exist achieved with temporary footwear until the ulcer heals and the tissues of the pes stabilize. Removable and nonremovable walker boots and total contact casts are effective in decreasing pressure at plantar surface ulcers (71–76). Although total contact casts are effective in supporting the healing of noninfected, nonischemic plantar surface neuropathic ulcers, full contact casting requires careful patient option and personnel who have specialized training to minimize the risk of developing iatrogenic complications (74,75,77–79). When bony pes deformity prevents the fitting of appropriate footwear or off-loading of force per unit area-related ulcers, consultation with a surgeon skilled in foot surgery may be considered to evaluate and treat the deformity (80–82).

Table 3
MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SMX-TMP, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim.
*Modified and used with permission from reference xc.
†The agents suggested in this department are for empiric therapy prior to the availability of final culture and susceptibility results. Noesis of local epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance profiles must also guide therapeutic choices.
‡Many of the agents identified in this tabular array exercise not have Health Canada approval specifically for treatment of diabetic foot infections, including osteomyelitis, but may take an indication for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections or antimicrobial activity against typical pathogens encountered in osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot.
§Duration of therapy is based on clinical response. However, typical treatment courses for skin and soft tissue infections range from 7 (mild) to 21 (severe) days, and the treatment of osteomyelitis may crave 4 to 6 weeks of parenteral or several months of oral antimicrobial therapy. Whenever possible, it is desirable to switch to oral antimicrobial therapy to avert complications from parenteral administration.
A1C, glycated hemoglobin; SMBG, cocky-monitoring of claret glucose.
Infection Severity Antimicrobial Amanuensis†,‡,§
Localized infections:
Neither limb nor life threatening
Normally associated with cellulitis surrounding an ulcer
Purulent debris may be present at the base of the ulcer
Usual organisms: aerobic gram-positive cocci (S. aureus and β-hemolytic streptococci)
Frequently treated with outpatient oral antimicrobial therapy
  • Cloxacillin
  • Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
  • Cephalexin
  • SMX-TMP
  • Clindamycin
  • Doxycycline
More than extensive infections:
  • Includes more severe infections, including more than extensive cellulitis, plantar abscess and deep infinite infections
  • The choice of oral or parenteral should be guided by the extent of the infection and the patient's overall clinical condition
  • Initial antimicrobial therapy against staphylococci, streptococci, anaerobes and common Enterobacteriaceae species
  • Empiric treatment targeting P. aeruginosa is generally unnecessary unless risk factors nowadays (e.m. history of foot soaking, severe or chronic infection)
  • Patients who are not toxic may be treated with debridement and oral antimicrobial therapy
  • Patients who are ill or toxic despite moderate local signs are treated as having a astringent infection:
    • Limb or life threatening
    • Frequently polymicrobial
    • Immediate hospitalization, early surgical debridement and parenteral antimicrobial therapy
    • If MRSA is nowadays or suspected, consider adding vancomycin, linezolid or daptomycin
 Oral Options
  • SMX-TMP plus metronidazole or clindamycin
  • Ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin plus clindamycin or metronidazole
  • Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
  • Moxifloxacin
  • Linezolid
Parenteral Options
  • Cefoxitin
  • anest, twond or 3rd generation cephalosporin plus metronidazole
  • Piperacillin-tazobactam
  • Clindamycin plus 3rd generation cephalosporin
  • Carbapenem
Osteomyelitis:
  • Treat with intravenous therapy or long-term oral antimicrobial therapy using agents that are well absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and accept good distribution to bone and tissue
  • Surgical debridement indicated to remove necrotic debris, abscess or sequestrum
  • Therapy should be based on civilization results whenever possible
  • If MRSA is present or suspected, consider adding vancomycin, linezolid or daptomycin
 Oral Options
  • Cloxacillin
  • Cephalexin
  • SMX-TMP
  • Clindamycin
  • Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
  • Linezolid
  • Doxycycline
  • SMX-TMP plus metronidazole or clindamycin
  • Levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole or clindamycin
Parenteral Options
  • Piperacillin-tazobactam
  • Clindamycin po/iv plus 3rd generation cephalosporin
  • Carbapenem

Treatment of the acute Charcot foot requires immobilization of the foot, typically for several months, in a total contact cast, removable walker boot or custom orthosis until consolidation occurs (63). Surgical stabilization may exist indicated for Charcot arthropathy associated with marked instability, deformity or nonhealing ulcers. Although bisphosphonates take been considered for the handling of Charcot arthropathy, farther studies are necessary to fully evaluate these agents and other medical therapies in the routine treatment of Charcot arthropathy (83–89).

Infection may complicate pes ulcers and may progress rapidly to go limb and/or life threatening (90). When infections brainstorm, the most frequent pathogens typically includeStaphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes(group A streptococcus) andStreptococcus agalactiae (group B streptococcus). With persistent infection and the presence of debilitated tissue, gram-negative and anaerobic pathogens may cause polymicrobial infection (36,91). Specimens for civilization from the surface of wounds are unreliable, and specimens from deeper tissues obtained by debridement are more likely to determine the correct bacterial pathogens for antimicrobial therapy (92–96). Initial therapy typically includes empiric, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and subsequent antibiotic pick is tailored to the sensitivity results of cultured specimens. With the exception of a few antimicrobial agents that have a specific indication for the treatment of diabetic foot infections, almost agents bachelor for use are selected for their antibacterial spectrum (36,95–97). Guidelines are available for antimicrobial choices in the empiric treatment of diabetic foot infections (Table iii) (98).

Achieving target glycemic control may be associated with decreased amputation frequency (99). Poor glycemic control may exist associated with immunopathy and blunted cellular response to infection. Many people (50%) who have diabetes and a major limb infection may not take fever or leukocytosis at presentation (100). Deep infections require prompt surgical debridement and appropriate antibiotic therapy (36,101).

In medically suitable individuals who have peripheral arterial disease and a history of ulceration or amputation, distal limb revascularization may improve long-term limb salvage. Endovascular techniques with angioplasty and stenting for infrainguinal arteries may be effective to achieve limb save, but the long-term success is less in people with diabetes than people without diabetes (83,102). A specific evidence-based recommendation about the type of revascularization technique cannot be made, and the preferred method is based on the judgment of the vascular surgeon, in consideration of medical and surgical risks (29,thirty).

There is limited testify to confirm an added benefit of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in reducing the indication for amputation or improving wound healing in individuals with diabetes. Therefore, hyperbaric oxygen therapy is non recommended for the routine treatment of infected or noninfected neuropathic or ischemic foot ulcers.

6. Other Relevant Guidelines

  • Targets for Glycemic Control, p. S42
  • Neuropathy, p. S217

seven. Relevant Appendices

  • Appendix 12. Monofilament Testing in the Diabetic Foot
  • Appendix 13. Diabetes and Foot Care: A Checklist
  • Appendix 14. Diabetic Foot Ulcers—Essentials of Management

Literature Review Flow Diagram for Chapter 32: Foot Intendance

null

*Excluded based on: population, intervention/exposure, comparator/control or study blueprint.

From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Grouping (2009).PreferredReportingItems forSystematic Reviews andThoueta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 (105).

For more information, visit www.prisma-argument.org.

8. Author Disclosures

No authors accept anything to disembalm.

Resources

Recommendations

  1. Health-care providers should perform foot examinations to identify people with diabetes at risk for ulcers and lower-extremity amputation [Form C, Level iii (9,xviii)] at least annually and at more frequent intervals in high-risk people [Form D, Level 4 (i)]. The test should include assessment for neuropathy, skin changes (e.g. calluses, ulcers, infection), peripheral arterial affliction (east.m. pedal pulses and pare temperature) and structural abnormalities (e.g. range of motion of ankles and toe joints, bony deformities) [Course D, Level four (ane)].
  2. People with diabetes who are at loftier adventure of developing foot ulcers should receive foot intendance education (including counseling to avoid pes trauma) and professionally fitted footwear [Grade D, Consensus]. When foot complications occur, early referral to a health-care professional trained in foot intendance is recommended [Course C, Level iii (37,48,49)].
  3. People with diabetes who develop a pes ulcer or show signs of infection fifty-fifty in the absence of hurting should be treated promptly by an interprofessional health-intendance team when bachelor with expertise in the treatment of foot ulcers to forbid recurrent foot ulcers and amputation [Course C, Level 3 (52)].
  4. There is bereft evidence to recommend any specific dressing blazon for typical diabetic foot ulcers [Grade C, Level three (103)]. Debridement of nonviable tissue [Course A, Level 1A (104)] and general principles of wound intendance include the provision of a physiologically moist wound environment, and off-loading the ulcer [Grade D, Consensus].
  5. At that place is bereft evidence to recommend the routine use of adjunctive wound-healing therapies (east.g. topical growth factors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors or dermal substitutes) for typical diabetic foot ulcers. Provided that all other modifiable factors (e.yard. force per unit area off-loading, infection, pes deformity) have been addressed, adjunctive wound-healing therapies may be considered for nonhealing, nonischemic wounds [Grade A, Level i (69,70)].

Abbreviations:

A1C, glycated hemoglobin;BG, blood glucose,BP, blood pressure level;MRI;magnetic resonance imaging.

References

  1. Boulton AJM, Armstrong DG, Albert SF, et al. Comprehensive foot test and run a 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;31:1679–85.
  2. Davis WA, Norman PE, Bruce DG, et al. Predictors, consequences and costs of diabetes-related lower extremity amputation complicating type 2 diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study. Diabetologia 2006;49:2634–41.
  3. O'Brien JA, Patrick AR, Caro JJ. Cost of managing complications resulting from blazon 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 2003;3:7.
  4. McEwen LN, Ylitalo KR, Munson Yard, et al. Human foot complications and bloodshed: results fromTranslating Enquiry Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). J AmPodiatr Med Assoc 2016;106:7–14.
  5. Skrepnek GH, Mills JL Sr, Armstrong DG. A diabetic emergency one million feet long: Disparities and burdens of affliction amid diabetic pes ulcer cases within emergency departments in the United States, 2006–2010. PLoS I 2015;10:e0134914.
  6. Brownrigg JR, Davey J, Holt PJ, et al. The association of ulceration of the foot with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2012;55:2906–12.
  7. Morbach Due south, Furchert H, Gröblinghoff U, et al. Long-term prognosis of diabetic foot patients and their limbs: Amputation and death over the course of a decade. Diabetes Care 2012;35:2021–seven.
  8. Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ, et al. Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care 1999;22:157–62.
  9. Crawford F, Inkster Chiliad, Kleijnen J, et al. Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. QJM 2007;100:65–86.
  10. Faglia E, Clerici G, Clerissi J, et al. Long-term prognosis of diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia: A population-based cohort study. Diabetes Care 2009;32:822–seven.
  11. Bruun C, Siersma V, Guassora Ad, et al. Amputations and foot ulcers in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus and observed for 19 years. The role of age, gender and co-morbidity. Diabet Med 2013;30:964–72.
  12. Fosse S, Hartemann-Heurtier A, Jacqueminet S, et al. Incidence and characteristics of lower limb amputations in people with diabetes. Diabet Med 2009;26:391–6.
  13. Ikonen TS, Sund R, Venermo Yard, et al. Fewer major amputations among individuals with diabetes in Finland in 1997–2007: A population-based study. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2598–603.
  14. Chronic Disease Surveillance and Monitoring Division. Diabetes in Canada: Facts and figures froma public health perspective. Ottawa (ON): Public Health Agency of Canada, 2011. Report No.: HP35-25/2011E. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/publications/diabetes-diabete/facts-figures-faits-chiffres-2011/pdf/facts-figures-faits-chiffres-eng.pdf.
  15. Belatti DA, Phisitkul P. Declines in lower extremity amputation in the US Medicare population, 2000–2010. Foot Ankle Int 2013;34:923–31.
  16. Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Stensel V, et al. A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer. The Seattle Diabetic Pes Study. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1036– 42.
  17. Fernando DJ, Masson EA, Veves A, et al. Relationship of limited joint mobility to abnormal human foot pressures and diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetes Care 1991;14:viii–11.
  18. Feng Y, Schlösser FJ, Sumpio BE. The SemmesWeinstein monofilament exam is a meaning predictor of the risk of human foot ulceration and amputation in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:220–6, e1-v.
  19. Schaper NC, Van Netten JJ, Apelqvist J, et al. Prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: A Summary Guidance for Daily Practice 2015, based on the IWGDF Guidance Documents. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:vii–fifteen.
  20. Crawford F, Cezard G, Chappell FM, et al. A systematic review and private patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for human foot ulceration in people with diabetes: The international inquiry collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS). Health Technol Assess 2015;19:ane–210.
  21. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Harkless LB. Validation of a diabetic wound classification system. The contribution of depth, infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation. Diabetes Care 1998;21:855–9.
  22. Oyibo SO, Jude EB, Tarawneh I, et al. A comparison of two diabetic foot ulcer classification systems: The Wagner and the University of Texas wound classification systems. Diabetes Care 2001;24:84–8.
  23. Jude EB, Oyibo SO, Chalmers N, et al. Peripheral arterial affliction in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: A comparison of severity and outcome. Diabetes Intendance 2001;24:1433–7.
  24. Kalani M, Brismar Grand, Fagrell B, et al. Transcutaneous oxygen tension and toe blood pressure as predictors for outcome of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Intendance 1999;22:147–51.
  25. Faglia Due east, Caravaggi C, Marchetti R, et al. Screening for peripheral arterial disease by means of the talocrural joint-brachial index in newly diagnosed type two diabetic patients. Diabet Med 2005;22:1310–4.
  26. Aerden D, Massaad D, von Kemp K, et al. The ankle–brachial index and the diabetic pes: A troublesome wedlock. Ann Vasc Surg 2011;25:770–7.
  27. Brownrigg JR, Hinchliffe RJ, Apelqvist J, et al. Effectiveness of bedside investigations to diagnose peripheral avenue disease amidst people with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:119–27.
  28. Williams DT, Harding KG, Price P. An evaluation of the efficacy of methods used in screening for lower-limb arterial affliction in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2206–10.
  29. Hinchliffe RJ, Brownrigg JR, Andros G, et al. Effectiveness of revascularization of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:136–44.
  30. Hinchliffe RJ, Brownrigg JRW, Apelqvist J, et al. IWGDF guidance on the diagnosis, prognosis and management of peripheral avenue illness in patients with pes ulcers in diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:37–44.
  31. Brillet PY, Vayssairat Thou, Tassart M, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography as showtime-line preoperative imaging in high-risk patients with lower limb ischemia. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:1139–45.
  32. Lapeyre Yard, Kobeiter H, Desgranges P, et al. Cess of disquisitional limb ischemia in patients with diabetes: Comparison of MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1641–50.
  33. Met R, Bipat S, Legemate DA, et al. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography in peripheral arterial affliction: A systematic review and metaanalysis. JAMA 2009;301:415–24.
  34. Pedersen 1000. Safety update on the possible causal relationship between gadolinium-containing MRI agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:881–iii.
  35. Centers for Illness Control and Prevention (CDC). Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy associated with exposure to gadolinium-containing dissimilarity agents– St. Louis, Missouri, 2002–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:137–41.
  36. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, et al. 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:e132–73.
  37. McCabe CJ, Stevenson RC, Dolan AM. Evaluation of a diabetic human foot screening and protection programme. Diabet Med 1998;15:80–4.
  38. Miller JD, Carter E, Shih J, et al. How to do a 3-infinitesimal diabetic pes examination. J Fam Pract 2014;63:646–56.
  39. Lavery LA, Higgins KR, Lanctot DR, et al. Preventing diabetic foot ulcer recurrence in high-adventure patients: Use of temperature monitoring every bit a self-assessment tool. Diabetes Intendance 2007;30:fourteen–twenty.
  40. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Monitoring healing of acute Charcot's arthropathy with infrared dermal thermometry. J Rehabil Res Dev 1997;34:317–21.
  41. Yu GV, Hudson JR. Evaluation and treatment of phase 0 Charcot'southward neuroarthropathy of the foot and talocrural joint. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2002;92:210–20.
  42. Frykberg RG, Zgonis T, Armstrong DG, et al. Diabetic human foot disorders. A clinical practice guideline (2006 revision). J Human foot Talocrural joint Surg 2006;45:S1–66.
  43. Ledermann HP, Morrison WB. Differential diagnosis of pedal osteomyelitis and diabetic neuroarthropathy: MR Imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2005;9:272–83.
  44. Embil JM, Trepman E. A case of diabetic Charcot arthropathy of the pes and ankle. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2009;5:577–81.
  45. Ahmadi ME, Morrison WB, Carrino JA, et al. Neuropathic arthropathy of the human foot with and without superimposed osteomyelitis: MR imaging characteristics. Radiology 2006;238:622–31.
  46. Leone A, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Semprini A, et al. Neuropathic osteoarthropathy with and without superimposed osteomyelitis in patients with a diabetic foot. Skeletal Radiol 2016;45:735–54.
  47. Apelqvist J, Bakker K, van Houtum WH, et al. Applied guidelines on the direction and prevention of the diabetic foot: Based upon the International Consensus on the Diabetic Human foot (2007) Prepared past the InternationalWorking Group on the Diabetic Pes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008;24:S181–vii.
  48. Valk GD, Kriegsman DM, Assendelft WJ. Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. A systematic review. Endocrinol Metab Clin Due north Am 2002;31:633–58.
  49. Arad Y, Fonseca Five, Peters A, et al. Beyond the monofilament for the insensate diabetic foot: A systematic review of randomized trials to prevent the occurrence of plantar pes ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1041–6.
  50. Bus SA, Valk GD, van Deursen RW, et al. The effectiveness of footwear and offloading interventions to forbid and heal foot ulcers and reduce plantar force per unit area in diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008; 24:S162–80.
  51. Margolis DJ, Kantor J, Berlin JA. Healing of diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers receiving standard treatment. A meta-analysis. Diabetes Intendance 1999;22:692–v.
  52. Dargis V, Pantelejeva O, Jonushaite A, et al. Benefits of a multidisciplinary arroyo in the management of recurrent diabetic foot ulceration in Republic of lithuania: A prospective study. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1428–31.
  53. Aydin Grand, Isildak M, Karakaya J, et al. Alter in amputation predictors in diabetic foot disease: Effect of multidisciplinary approach. Endocrine 2010;38:87–92.
  54. Martínez-Gómez DA, Moreno-Carrillo MA, Campillo-Soto A, et al. Reduction in diabetic amputations over xv years in a divers Kingdom of spain population. Benefits of a critical pathway approach and multidisciplinary squad work. Rev Esp Quimioter 2014;27:170–ix.
  55. De Corrado Yard, Repetti E, Latina A, et al. A multidisciplinary foot intendance team approach can lower the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers and amputation: Results of the Asti written report at 12 years. G It Diabetol Metab 2013;33:90–seven, [Commodity in Italian].
  56. Wu L, Norman G, Dumville JC, et al. Dressings for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(7):CD010471.
  57. Game FL, Apelqvist J, Attinger C, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to heighten healing of chronic ulcers of the human foot in diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:154–68.
  58. Game FL, Attinger C, Hartemann A, et al. IWGDF guidance on use of interventions to enhance the healing of chronic ulcers of the foot in diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:75–83.
  59. Dumville JC, O'Meara Due south, Deshpande Due south, et al. Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(6):CD009110.
  60. Dumville JC, Deshpande S, O'Meara S, et al. Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(6):CD009111.
  61. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Diabetic Foot Report Consortium. Negative pressure level wound therapy later partial diabetic human foot amputation: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1704–10.
  62. Edwards J, Stapley S. Debridement of diabetic pes ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(ane):CD003556.
  63. Molines 50, Darmon P, Raccah D. Charcot's foot: Newest findings on its pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Diabetes Metab 2010;36:251–5.
  64. Health Technology Inquiry Service. Negative pressure therapy for patients infected wounds: A review of the clinical and price-effectiveness show and recommendations for use. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 2010. https://world wide web.cadth.ca/media/pdf/l0194_negative_pressure_therapy_htis-2.pdf.
  65. Gregor S, Maegele M, Sauerland S, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy: A vacuum of bear witness? Curvation Surg 2008;143:189–96.
  66. Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, et al. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the handling of diabetic foot ulcers: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2008;31:631–six.
  67. Marti-Carvajal AJ, Gluud C, Nicola S, et al. Growth factors for treating diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(10):CD008548.
  68. Santema TB, Poyck PP, Ubbink DT. Skin grafting and tissue replacement for treating human foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;(two):CD011255.
  69. Buchberger B, Follmann One thousand, Freyer D, et al. The importance of growth factors for the handling of chronic wounds in the case of diabetic foot ulcers. GMS Health Technol Assess 2010;six:Doc12.
  70. Cruciani M, Lipsky BA, Mengoli C, et al. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(8):CD006810.
  71. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Wu S, et al. Evaluation of removable and irremovable bandage walkers in the healing of diabetic foot wounds: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2005;28:551–4.
  72. Armstrong DG, Nguyen HC, Lavery LA, et al. Off-loading the diabetic pes wound: A randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1019–22.
  73. Katz IA, Harlan A, Miranda-Palma B, et al. A randomized trial of two irremovable off-loading devices in the management of plantar neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 2005;28:555–9.
  74. Bus SA, Armstrong DG, van Deursen RW, et al. IWGDF guidance on footwear and offloading interventions to prevent and heal human foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:25–36.
  75. Bus SA, van Deursen RW, Armstrong DG, et al. Footwear and offloading interventions to prevent and heal pes ulcers and reduce plantar pressure in patients with diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:99–118.
  76. Elraiyah T, Prutsky G, Domecq JP, et al. A systematic review and metaanalysis of off-loading methods for diabetic human foot ulcers. J Vasc Surg 2016; 63:59S–68S, e1-2.
  77. Nabuurs-Franssen MH, Sleegers R, Huijberts MS, et al. Total contact casting of the diabetic foot in daily practise: A prospective follow-up study. Diabetes Intendance 2005;28:243–7.
  78. Guyton GP. An assay of iatrogenic complications from the full contact cast. Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:903–vii.
  79. de Oliveira AL, Moore Z. Treatment of the diabetic foot by offloading: A systematic review. J Wound Care 2015;24:560,562–seventy.
  80. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA 2005;293:217–28.
  81. Blume PA, Paragas LK, Sumpio BE, et al. Single-stage surgical treatment of noninfected diabetic foot ulcers. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:601–9.
  82. Sayner LR, Rosenblum BI, Giurini JM. Elective surgery of the diabetic human foot. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2003;xx:783–92.
  83. Dick F, Diehm N, Galimanis A, et al. Surgical or endovascular revascularization in patients with critical limb ischemia: Influence of diabetes mellitus on clinical issue. J Vasc Surg 2007;45:751–61.
  84. Löndahl Thou, Katzman P, Nilsson A, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy facilitates healing of chronic human foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Intendance 2010;33:998–1003.
  85. Löndahl Thousand, Fagher Thousand, Katzman P. What is the role of hyperbaric oxygen in the management of diabetic foot disease? Curr Diab Rep 2011;11:285–93.
  86. Trepman Due east, Nihal A, Pinzur MS. Current topics review: Charcot neuroarthropathy of the pes and ankle. Pes Talocrural joint Int 2005;26:46–63.
  87. Jude EB, Selby PL, Burgess J, et al. Bisphosphonates in the treatment of Charcot neuroarthropathy: A double-blind randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2001;44:2032–seven.
  88. Pitocco D, Ruotolo Five, Caputo Southward, et al. Six-calendar month treatment with alendronate in acute Charcot neuroarthropathy: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2005;28:1214–fifteen.
  89. Richard JL, Almasri M, Schuldiner S. Handling of astute Charcot foot with bisphosphonates: A systematic review of the literature. Diabetologia 2012;55:1258–64.
  90. Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich RP, et al. Risk factors for pes infections in individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1288–93.
  91. Rao N, Lipsky BA. Optimising antimicrobial therapy in diabetic foot infections. Drugs 2007;67:195–214.
  92. Perry CR, Pearson RL, Miller GA. Accurateness of cultures of cloth from swabbing of the superficial aspect of the wound and needle biopsy in the preoperative assessment of osteomyelitis. J Bone Articulation Surg Am1991;73:745–9.
  93. Senneville Eastward, Melliez H, Beltrand E, et al. Culture of percutaneous bone biopsy specimens for diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: Cyclopedia with ulcer swab cultures. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:57–62.
  94. Slater RA, Lazarovitch T, Boldur I, et al. Swab cultures accurately identify bacterial pathogens in diabetic human foot wounds not involving bone. Diabet Med 2004;21:705–9.
  95. Lipsky BA, Aragón-Sánchez J, Diggle One thousand, et al. IWGDF guidance on the diagnosis and direction of foot infections in persons with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:45–74.
  96. Peters EJ, Lipsky BA, Aragón-Sánchez J, et al. Interventions in the management of infection in the human foot in diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:145–53.
  97. Embil JM, Trepman E. Diabetic foot infections. In: Gray J, ed. Therapeutic choices. 6th edn. Ottawa: Canadian Pharmacists Clan, 2011, pg. 1448–62.
  98. Embil JM, Trepman E. Diabetic pes infections. In: Jovaisas B, ed. Compendium of therapeutic choices (CTC7). 7th edn. Ottawa: Canadian Pharmacists Association, 2011, pg. 1332–43.
  99. Hasan R, Firwana B, Elraiyah T, et al. A systematic review and meta-assay of glycemic control for the prevention of diabetic human foot syndrome. J Vasc Surg 2016;63:22S–8S, e1-2.
  100. Eneroth 1000, Apelqvist J, Stenström A. Clinical characteristics and consequence in diabetic patients with deep foot infections. Foot Ankle Int 1997;18:716–22.
  101. Tan JS, Friedman NM, Hazelton-Miller C, et al. Can aggressive treatment of diabetic foot infections reduce the demand for above-ankle amputation? Clin Infect Dis 1996;23:286–91.
  102. Abularrage CJ, Conrad MF, Hackney LA, et al. Long-term outcomes of diabetic patients undergoing endovascular infrainguinal interventions. J Vasc Surg 2010;52:314–22, e1-iv.
  103. Vermeulen H, Ubbink D, Goossens A, et al. Dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD003554.
  104. Elraiyah T, Domecq JP, Prutsky G, et al. A systematic review and metaanalysis of débridement methods for chronic diabetic foot ulcers. J Vasc Surg 2016;63:37S–45S, e2.
  105. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.

Disclaimers: Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. *The Canadian Diabetes Association is the registered owner of the name Diabetes Canada. All content on guidelines.diabetes.ca, CPG Apps and in our online store remains exactly the same. For questions, contact communication@diabetes.ca

dovemoroate.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.diabetes.ca/health-care-providers/clinical-practice-guidelines/chapter-32

0 Response to "when teaching the diabetic client about foot care, what should the nurse instruct the client to do?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel