Examination of tactile disorders in diabetic patients and cooperation with a neurologist

Česká verzia

Authors: A. Jirkovská; P. Bouček
Authors place of work: Centrum diabetologie Institutu klinické a experimentální medicíny Praha, přednostka prof. MUDr. Terezie Pelikánová, DrSc.
Published in the journal: Vnitř Lék 2007; 53(5): 489-494
Category:

Summary

Examining sensorial dysfunction may be difficult for both the doctor and the patient because subjective feelings are misleading and do not reflect the actual severity of a neurological disorder. Sensorial tests provide objective results of measurements, which can be checked against normal values and which allow for determining the severity of neuropathy. Examining sensorial function on feet is necessary in diabetic patients because its loss is the principal risk factor for ulceration. The examination comprises vibration perception tests using a tuner or a biothesiometer, and evaluating surface sensation with the use of monofilaments. A more detailed type of examination is the testing of the electric current perception threshold with the use of different models of neurometer which allows for examining all three main groups of sensorial nerve fibres, i.e. Aβ (large myelinated), Aδ (small myelinated) and C (non-myelinated). The study evaluated the differences between routine diagnosing of polyneuropathy on outpatient basis and biothesiometer and monofilament examination. We discovered that patients with severe neuropathy diagnosed by non-invasive semi-quantitative examination were diagnosed for neuropathy on outpatient basis only in 54 % of cases, which points to the need to extend the use of non-invasive examination to outpatient practice. The Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS) assesses neurological functions as a whole, but is more time consuming than simple sensorial tests. Neuropathy self-monitoring by the patient in risk of diabetic foot using the diagnostic test (Neuropad) looks promising. The diabetologist cooperates with a neurologist especially in differential diagnosis of neuropathy, in the treatment of its painful forms and in the classification of its severity.

Key words:
diabetic neuropathy – diabetic foot syndrome – non-invasive examination

Zdroje

1. Bakker K (ed), Mezinárodní pracovní skupina pro syndrom diabetické nohy. Syndrom diabetické nohy. Mezinárodní konsenzus. Praha: Galén 2000.

2. Boulton A, Vinik A, Arezzo J et al. Diabetic neuropathies. A statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 956-962.

3. Young MJ, Veves A, Breddy JL et al. The prediction of diabetic neuropathic foot ulceration using vibration perception thresholds: a prospective study. Diabetes Care 1994; 17: 557-560.

4. Abbott CA, Vileykite L, Williamson S et al. Multicentre study of the incidence of and the predictive factors for diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 1071-1075.

5. Mazárová V, Bouček P. Diabetická neuropatie. In: Bartoš V, Pelikánová T (eds). Praktická diabetologie. 3. ed. Praha: Maxdorf 2003: 259-270.

6. Ganong WF. Přehled lékařské fyziologie. Praha: H+H 1995.

7. Quattrini C, Jeziorska M, Malik R. Small fiber neuropathy in diabetes: clinical consequence and assessment. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2004; 3: 16-21.

8. American Diabetes Association: Preventive foot care in people with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23(Suppl 1): 55-56.

9. Jirkovská A et al. Syndrom diabetické nohy. Praha: Maxdorf 2006.

10. Young M, Jones G. Diabetic neuropathy: symptoms, signs and assessment. Boulton AJM, Carnforth H (eds). Diabetic neuropathy. Carnforth (UK): Marius Press 1997: 41-61.

11. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. J Am Med Assoc 2005; 293: 217-227.

12. American Diabetes Association: Consensus statement: diabetic neuropathy. Standardized measures in diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care 1995; 18(Suppl 1): 53-82.

13. Young MJ, Boulton AJM, Macleod AF et al. A multicentre study of the prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the United Kingdom hospital clinic population. Diabetologia 1993; 36:150-154.

14. Bloom S, Till S, Sonksen P et al. Use of biothesiometer to measure individual vibration threshold and their variation in 519 non-diabetic subjects. Brit Med J 1984; 288: 1793-1795.

15. Williams G, Jaswinder SG, Aber V et al. Variability in vibration perception threshold among sites: a potential source of error in biothesiometry. Brit Med J 1988; 296: 233-235.

16. Neely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH et al. The independent contributions of diabetic neuropathy and vasculopathy in foot ulceration. Diabetes Care 1995; 18: 216-219.

17. Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Stensel V et al. A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer: the Seattle Diabetic Foot Study. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 1036-1042.

18. Rith-Najarian S, Stolusky T, Gohdes D. Identifying diabetic patients at high risk for lower-extremity amputation in a primary health care setting. Diabetes Care 1992; 15: 1386-1389.

19. Pham H, Armstrong DG, Harvey C et al. Screening techniques to identify the at risk patients for developing diabetic foot ulcers in a prospective multicenter trial. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 606-611.

20. Mason J, O´Keeffe C, Hutchionson A et al. A systematic review of foot ulcer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, II: treatment. Diabet Med 1999; 16: 889-909.

21. Jirkovská A, Wosková V, Bartoš V et al. Význam neinvazivní diagnostiky angiopatie a neuropatie při screeningovém vyšetření syndromu diabetické nohy. Vnitř Lék 1998; 44: 269-273.

22. Jirkovská A, Bouček P, Wosková V et al. Identification of patients at risk for diabetic foot: a comparison of standardized noninvasive testing with routine practice at community diabetes clinics. J Diabet Complications 2001; 16: 63-68.

23. Vileikyte L, Hutchings G, Hollis S et al. The tactile circumferential discriminator. A new, simple screening device to identify diabetic patients at risk of foot ulceration. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 623-626.

24. Grant IA, O’Brien P, Dyck PJ. Neuropathy tests and normative results. In: Dyck P, Thomas P (eds). Diabetic neuropathy. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1999: 123-141.

25. Boulton A, Malik R, Arezzo J et al. Diabetic somatic neuropathies. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 1458-1486.

26. Masson E, Boulton A. The Neurometer: Validation and comparison with conventional tests for diabetic neuropathy. Diabet Med 1991; 8 (zvláštní číslo): S63-S66.

27. Manes C, Mikoudi K, Sossidou E et al. Evaluation of new indicator plaster in identifying diabetic patients at risk of foot ulceration. Diabetologia 2004; 47 (Suppl 1): A376.

28. Papanas N, Giassakis G, Papatheodorou K et al. Use of the new indicator test (Neuropad) for the assessment of the staged severity of neuropathy in type 2 diabetic patients. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2007;115(1): 58-61.

29. Didangelos T, Zografou I, Papageorgiou A et al. Validation of new diabetic autonomic neuropathy bedside test (plaster) vs. the MNSI, monofilament of 10 g test and biothesiometer. Diabet Med 2006; 23(Suppl 4): P186.

30. Papanas N, Gries A, Maltezos E et al. The steel ball-bearing test: a new test for evaluating protective sensation in the diabetic foot. Diabetologia 2006; 49: 739-743.