4.3 Article

Effects of preventative footwear on foot pressure as determined by pedobarography in diabetic patients: a prospective study

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 314-319

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2001.00482.x

Keywords

diabetic foot; pedobarography; insole support

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims This study analysed the effects of specially manufactured insoles on foot pressures in diabetic patients during a 1-year prospective observation period. Methods We studied 81 type 2 diabetic patients without foot lesions. Using pedobarography three different regions of interest were examined: maximum peak pressure (MPP) of the total foot area, heel region and head of metatarsal bone I-III. Eighteen patients with high risk pressure (MPP of total foot 474 +/- 183 kPa; heel region 278 +/- 147 kPa, metatarsal 389 +/- 222 kPa) received optimal insole support. Sixty-three patients as a control group (MMP of total foot 367.7 +/- 157 kPa; heel 263.1 +/- 127 kPa, metatarsal 339.9 +/- 171 kPa) received conventional footwear. Results After insole support a 30% pressure reduction of total foot MMP (474 +/- 183 kPa vs. 290 +/- 106 kPa) was achieved in the treatment group. After 6 months (324 +/- 127 kPa) and 1 year (380 +/- 190 kPa) a pressure reduction was found. Between the 6- and 12-month controls plantar pressures again increased. In the control group a significant increase of ail peak pressures occurred. Conclusions Early insole support is successful in reducing plantar pressure. A repeated adjustment should be performed every 6 months to prevent foot pressure increases. The comparison of foot pressure development between the two groups showed constant levels in the treatment group. In the control group a marked increase of the pressure values was found. Identification and subsequent support of patients with high ulceration risk may help to reduce the high amputation rate.

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