This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activities for this article:
CME 2: April, May, June 2004
Foot/Ankle Test 4: Perioperative Considerations/Nonoperative Treatments
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saltzman, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hillis, S. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Saltzman, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hillis, S. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Foot/Ankle
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:717-723 (2004)
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

4.5-Gram Monofilament Sensation Beneath Both First Metatarsal Heads Indicates Protective Foot Sensation in Diabetic Patients

Charles L. Saltzman, MD1, Rola Rashid, MD1, Andrea Hayes1, Chris Fellner, BA1, Denise Fitzpatrick, RN1, Aimee Klapach, MD1, Rita Frantz, PhD1 and Stephen L. Hillis, PhD1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa, UIHC, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246. E-mail address for C.L. Saltzman: charles-saltzman{at}uiowa.edu

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from the National Institutes of Health. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.


Background: Loss of protective plantar foot sensation is the major cause of diabetic foot ulcerations and ultimate limb loss. Identification of patients without protective sensation can reduce the risk of unrecognized foot injury. The current recommended screening protocol requires 10-g monofilament testing of ten foot sites with use of a forced-choice paradigm. The objective of the present study was to determine whether testing of fewer than ten sites could provide accuracy comparable with that obtained by testing all ten sites.

Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study of plantar sensory levels in diabetic subjects with and without plantar ulceration was conducted in a tertiary-care teaching hospital setting. We examined forty-seven diabetic subjects with a history of foot ulceration and forty-five diabetic subjects with no history of foot ulceration. Plantar sensory threshold values at five sites on the sole of each foot were measured with a quasi-continuous range of applied forces, and receiver operating characteristic analysis techniques were applied.

Results: Screening on the basis of only the maximum force threshold for the left and right first metatarsal head sites provided comparable or better performance at high levels of sensitivity than did either the mean or the maximum force threshold across all ten sites. A sensory threshold of 4.5 g for both the left and right first metatarsal head sites predicted the risk of ulceration with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 67%.

Conclusions: Testing of diabetic patients for protective sensation may be simplified to testing under both first metatarsal heads with a 4.5-g monofilament. If a patient cannot sense the application of a 4.5-g monofilament under either first metatarsal head, he or she probably has lost protective sensation and should be considered to be at risk for undetected injury.

Level of Evidence: Diagnostic study, Level II-1 (development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients [with universally applied reference "gold" standard]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JBJSHome page
R. A. Miller, T. A. DeCoster, and M. S. Mizel
What's New in Foot and Ankle Surgery?
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 2005; 87(4): 909 - 917.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Letters to the Editor:

Read all Letters to the Editor

Threshold of Protective Sensation in Diabetic Patients
Govind N. Malaviya, MS, FICS, DHRM
JBJS Online, 9 Aug 2004 [Full text]