4.3 Article

Differences in initial versus recurrent diabetic foot ulcers at a specialized tertiary diabetic foot care center in China

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0300060520987398

Keywords

Diabetic foot ulcer; recurrence; risk factor; callus; vascular intervention; amputation

Funding

  1. Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission [Z181100001718027]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that diabetes duration, callus, history of vascular intervention, and amputation were independent risk factors for recurrent DFUs in a cohort of Chinese patients with active DFU.
Objective To investigate the characteristics of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) recurrence. Methods A total of 573 patients with DFUs were recruited and divided into an initial group (395 patients) and a recurrence group (178 patients). The factors related to recurrence were analyzed using multivariate regression. Results The recurrence group had longer diabetes duration (odds ratio [OR] 192; 95% confidence interval 120, 252 vs. 156; 96, 240); lower glycated hemoglobin levels (OR 8.1; 95% CI 6.8, 9.6 vs. 9.1; 7.4, 10.5), and higher rates than the initial group of amputation (37.5% vs. 2.0%), history of vascular intervention (21.3% vs. 3.9%), retinopathy (77.7% vs. 64.7%), callus (44.4% vs. 20.8%), foot deformity (51.2% vs. 24.6%), and outdoor sports shoe wearing (34.0% vs. 21.2%). Multiple factor logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes duration (OR 1.004), callus (OR 2.769), vascular intervention (OR 2.824) and amputation (OR 22.256) were independent risk factors for DFU recurrence. Conclusion Diabetes duration, callus, history of vascular intervention, and amputation were independent risk factors for recurrent DFUs in a cohort of Chinese patients with active DFU. The prevention and treatment of DFUs, especially callus treatment, foot care, and blood glucose control, should be improved in China.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available