BackgroundAlthough monitoring foot skin temperatures has been associated with diabetic foot ulcer recurrence, no studies have been carried out to test the feasibility among European Caucasians. Moreover, the educational and/or motivational models that promote cognitive or psychosocial processes in these studies are lacking. Thus, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to test the feasibility of monitoring foot skin temperatures in combination with theory-based counselling to standard foot care to reduce diabetic foot ulcer recurrence.MethodsIn a single-blinded nurse-led 1-year controlled trial, conducted at a hospital setting in Norway, 41 patients with diabetic neuropathy and previous foot ulcer were randomized to the intervention (n = 21) or control groups (n = 20). All participants were instructed in foot care and recording observations daily. Additionally, the intervention group was taught how to monitor and record skin temperature at baseline, and received counselling every third month supporting them to use the new treatment. Subjects observing temperature differences >2.0 °C between corresponding sites on the left and right foot on two consecutive days were asked to contact the study nurse and reduce physical activity. Fisher exact test was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on the proportion of subjects with a foot ulcer. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare the two groups in regard to the time to development of a foot ulcer.ResultsIn the intervention group, 67 % (n = 14/21) monitored and recorded skin temperatures ≥80 % of the time while 70 % (n = 14/20) of the controls recorded foot inspections. Foot ulcer incidence was 39 % (7/21) vs. 50 % (10/20) in the intervention and control groups, respectively (ns).ConclusionsThis feasibility study showed that the addition of counselling to promote self-monitoring of skin temperature to standard care to prevent recurrence of foot ulcer is feasible in patients with diabetes in Norway. Home skin temperature monitoring was performed as frequently by the intervention group as usual foot observations in the controls despite the extra effort required. We did not detect a difference in foot ulcer recurrence between groups, but our study may inform future full scale studies.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01269502

Level 1, randomized clinical trial.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Unstable Lisfranc injuries are best treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. There are controversies regarding which type of stabilization is best. In the present study, we compared primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint to temporary bridge plating in unstable Lisfranc injuries. Methods: Forty-eight patients with Lisfranc injuries were included and followed for 2 years. Twenty-four patients were randomized to primary arthrodesis (PA) of the medial 3 TMT joints, whereas 24 patients were randomized to temporary bridge plate (BP) over the first TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the second and third TMT joints. The main outcome parameter was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale and the secondary outcome parameters were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Computed tomography (CT) scans pre- and postoperatively were obtained. Radiographs were obtained at follow-ups. Pedobarographic examination was performed at the 2-year follow-up. Twenty-two of 24 patients in the PA and 23/24 in the BP group completed the 2-year follow-up. Results: The mean AOFAS midfoot score 2 years postoperatively was 89 (SD 9) in the PA group and 85 (SD 15) in the BP group ( P = .32). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to SF-36 or VAS pain scores. The alignment of the first metatarsal was better in the BP group than in the PA group measured by the anteroposterior Meary angle ( P = .04). The PA group had a reduced peak pressure under the fifth metatarsal ( P = .047). In the BP group, 11/24 patients had radiologic signs of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint. Conclusion: Both treatment groups had good outcome scores. The first metatarsal was better aligned in the BP group; however, there was a high incidence of radiographic osteoarthritis in this group. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.