The diagnostic value of measuring pressure pain perception in patients with diabetes mellitus

NewsBot · Oct 6, 2012

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
The diagnostic value of measuring pressure pain perception in patients with diabetes mellitus.
Wienemann T, Chantelau E.
Swiss Med Wkly. 2012 Oct 4;142:0.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY:
Repetitive skin trauma and reduced pressure pain sensation are necessary components of plantar ulcer risk in patients with diabetic neuropathy. The diagnostic value of measuring pressure nociception to detect ulcer risk is, however, unknown. Instead, measuring the vibration perception threshold (VPT) by 64 Hz graduated Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork has become standard clinical practice to screen for neuropathy and ulcer proneness. We therefore set up a diagnostic case-control study to compare the VPT, the cutaneous pressure pain perception threshold (CPPPT) and the deep pressure pain perception threshold (DPPPT) at the foot sole in diabetic patients with and without past or present painless plantar ulcer.

METHODS:
A total of 68 patients were studied, 34 with active or previous plantar ulcer. VPT was measured by Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork at the 1st metatarsal head (≤4/8 grade indicating clinical neuropathy). CPPPT was measured at a toe skinfold by calibrated monofilaments. DPPPT was measured by Algometer II® over musculus hallucis longus and over a metatarsophalangeal joint.

RESULTS:
The sensitivity and specificity to identify patients with present or past foot ulcer were as follows: 0.82 and 0.88 (VPT cut-off 1/8); 0.97 and 0.62(VPT cut-off 4/8); 0.93 and 0.77 (CPPPT cut-off 513 mN); 0.76 and 0.58 (DPPPT muscle, cut-off 545 kPa); 0.82 and 0.79 (DPPPT joint, cut-off 760 kPa).

CONCLUSION:
Pressure algometry was not superior to measuring VPT for distinguishing between patients with and without painless plantar ulcers; VPT ≤1/8 was more efficient than ≤4/8 grade in identifying ulcer patients.
Click to expand...

Admin2 · Oct 6, 2012

Related Threads:
Other threads tagged with neurological testing
Vibration thresholds are increased at low frequencies in the sole of the foot in diabetes a novel multi-frequency approach
Warm and cold recovery tests in diabetic neuropathy
Fluctuations in diabetic foot sensory testing
VibraTip for diabetic foot assessment
Optimizing reliability and sensitivity of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments
Virtual assessment of the diabetic foot
Monofilament vs. biothesiometer
Failing to see the usefulness of vibration testing for feet which demonstrate no LOPS with 10g Monofilament testing...
Face validity of VPT index as measure of pacinian corpuscle density
Use of 10g monofilament in diabetic foot assessment
Monofilament vs Neurotip vs Neurometer
Two Point Discrimination in diabetes
Threshold for detecting neuropathy with monofilaments
Reliability of the 10 g monofilament
Neurothesiometer vs Monofilament

NewsBot · Sep 29, 2016

CONVENTIONAL DEEP PRESSURE ALGOMETRY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF NOCICEPTION IN PAINLESS DIABETIC NEUROPATHY
Ernst A. Chantelau, MD, PhD*
Diabetic Foot & Ankle 2016, 7: 31922

Background: In diabetic persons with painless neuropathic foot ulceration, foot skin was found to be insensate to noxious pinprick stimulation (stimulation area less than 0.05 mm2), while compression of deep subcutaneous foot tissues by Algometer II® (stimulation area 1 cm2) could evoke a deep dull aching. To elucidate this discrepancy, the Algometer II stimulation technique was critically reviewed by varying probe sizes and anatomical sites in the same study population 3 years later.

Methods: Ten control subjects without neuropathy and 11 persons with painless diabetic neuropathy (PLDN, seven of whom with diabetic foot syndrome, i.e., past painless foot ulcer, or inactive Charcot arthropathy) were re-examined using Algometer II. Deep pressure pain perception threshold (DPPPT) was measured in random sequence with stimulation areas of 0.5 cm2, 1 cm2, and 2 cm2 (separated by 5 min intervals), at the plantar forefoot, the instep, and the hindfoot of both legs.

Results: In the control and PLDN groups, median DPPPTs differed significantly between stimulation areas (highest with 0.5 cm2, intermediate with 1 cm2, lowest with 2 cm2; p<0.001), and varied moderately by anatomical site. Between-group differences were relatively small. Results of the 1 cm2 assessments repeated 3 years apart were similar.

Conclusions: Algometer II readings represent spatial summation of low-threshold pressure-receptor rather than of high-threshold nociceptor stimulation and are, thus, unhelpful for assessing PLDN. Reproducibility of the measurements is good.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Feb 27, 2017

Traditional Methods versus Quantitative Sensory Testing of the Feet at Risk: Results from the Rotterdam Diabetic Foot Study.
Rinkel WD, Castro Cabezas M, Setyo JH, Van Neck JW, Coert JH.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Mar;139(3):752e-763e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003047.

BACKGROUND:
Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy is one of the greatest risk factors for foot ulceration. The current study investigated the measurement properties of the Pressure-Specified Sensory Device in comparison with traditional threshold screening instruments, in several categories of sensory loss. Knowledge of these values may help to identify diabetics at risk for ulceration more reliably.
METHODS:
A partially cross-sectional cohort study was carried out in patients with diabetes. Traditional instruments classified each patient into groups representing severity of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy. Demographic characteristics, laboratory measures, and Pressure-Specified Sensory Device measurements were compared between groups. The Bland-Altman method was used to characterize reliability of the Pressure-Specified Sensory Device, and construct validity was determined by comparison with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments.
RESULTS:
One hundred fifty-five diabetic patients were measured. Fifteen patients had a diabetic ulcer in their medical history, seven patients were insensate to the 10-g monofilament and had diminished vibration sense (group 1), 34 patients had diminished vibration sense but no elevated cutaneous threshold (group 2), and 99 patients acted as controls (no elevated cutaneous threshold or diminished vibration sense, group 3). The Pressure-Specified Sensory Device distinguished these groups with one-point static cutaneous thresholds alone. Semmes-Weinstein monofilament and Pressure-Specified Sensory Device measurements were not interchangeable. Spatial discrimination (two-point static and two-point moving discrimination) by the Pressure-Specified Sensory Device was more reliable compared with one-point static discrimination. Semmes-Weinstein monofilament (force in grams and pressure in grams per square millimeter) correlations with Pressure-Specified Sensory Device measurements differed between groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Pressure-Specified Sensory Device is able to distinguish between categories of sensory loss. The Pressure-Specified Sensory Device is valid in measuring cutaneous thresholds and can reliably measure spatial discrimination at the feet.
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Prognostic Value of Diagnostic Sonography in Patients With Plantar Fasciitis

The Diagnostic Value of Pedobarography

Diagnostic value of fungal fluorescence in onychomycosis

Diagnostic Tests for Functional Hallux Limitus

Diagnostic Podoscope - foot device - podoscop.com

Hand held diagnostic ultrasound attached to smartphones

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Slump Test

Share This Page