Materials and Methods: From 2012 to 2014, we consecutively recruited patients with diabetic foot referred to Orthopaedic surgery department of our university for surgical opinion. A specific diabetic foot pathway was introduced in 2013. One group of patients who were treated with previous method were evaluated retrospectively. Another group of patients who were treated after implementation of the pathway were evaluated prospectively. We compared treatment outcome between the two groups.
Results: We included 51 patients. Amputation rate was similar both the groups: 74% in the retrospective group not using the new pathway versus 73% in a prospective group that used the new pathway. Revision surgery was 39% in the retrospective group and 14% in the prospective group (p=0.05).
Conclusion: We recommend the use of this simple and cost-effective pathway to guide the interdisciplinary management of diabetic foot. A prospective study with more subjects would provide a better overview of this management pathway.
Materials and Methods: Sixty-three diabetic foot patients admitted from June 15, 2019 to February 15, 2020. Methods included one-on-one interview for clinico-demographic data, physical examination to determine the classification. Patients were followed-up and outcomes were determined. Pearson Chi-square or Fisher's Exact determined association between clinico-demographic data, the classifications, and outcomes. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve determined predictive abilities of classification systems and paired analysis compared the curves. Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) values used to compare the prediction accuracy. Analysis was set at 95% CI.
Results: Results showed hypertension, duration of diabetes, and ambulation status were significantly associated with major amputation. WIFi showed the highest AUC of 0.899 (p = 0.000). However, paired analysis showed AUC differences between WIFi, Wagner, and University of Texas classifications by grade were not significantly different from each other.
Conclusion: The WIFi, Wagner, and University of Texas classification systems are good predictors of major amputation with WIFi as the most predictive.
Materials and Methods: In two tertiary care selected hospitals, the included diabetic patients were randomly divided into two study arms. In the control group, 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment from hospitals were included. However, in the intervention group, those 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment along with counseling sessions from pharmacists under the Diabetes Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (DMTAC) program were included. The study continued for 1 year, and there were four follow-up visits for both study arms. A prevalidated data collection form was used to measure the improvement in predictors of diabetic foot in included patients. Data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program, version 24.0.
Results: With the average decrease of 1.97% of HbA1c values in the control group and 3.43% in the intervention group, the univariate and multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant difference between both of the study arms in the improvement of predictors belonging to the diabetic foot (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients without any signs and symptoms of the diabetic foot in the intervention group was 91.7%, which increased from 42.3% at baseline (P < 0.05). However, this proportion in the control group was 76.9% at the fourth follow-up, from 48.3% at baseline (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: A statistically significant reduction in the signs and symptoms of diabetic foot was observed in the intervention group at the end of 1 year. The progression of diabetic foot was significantly decreased in the pharmacist intervention group.