Infrared thermography and ulcer prevention in the high-risk diabetic foot: data from a single-blind multicentre controlled clinical trial.

AIM: To assess the usefulness of monthly thermography and standard foot care to reduce diabetic foot ulcer recurrence. METHODS: People with diabetes (n = 110), neuropathy and history of ≥ 1 foot ulcer participated in a single-blind multicentre clinical trial. Feet were imaged with a novel thermal imaging device (Diabetic Foot Ulcer Prevention System). Participants were randomized to intervention (active thermography + standard foot care) or control (blinded thermography + standard foot care) and were followed up monthly until ulcer recurrence or for 12 months. Foot thermograms of participants from the intervention group were assessed for hot spots (areas with temperature ≥ 2.2°C higher than the corresponding contralateral site) and acted upon as per local standards. RESULTS: After 12 months, 62% of participants were ulcer-free in the intervention group and 56% in the control group. The odds ratios of ulcer recurrence (intervention vs control) were 0.82 (95% CI 0.38, 1.8; P = 0.62) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.21, 1.4; P = 0.22) in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, respectively. The hazard ratios for the time to ulcer recurrence (intervention vs control) were 0.84 (95% CI 0.45, 1.6; P = 0.58) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.34, 1.3; P = 0.24) in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly intervention with thermal imaging did not result in a significant reduction in ulcer recurrence rate or increased ulcer-free survival in this cohort at high risk of foot ulcers. This trial has, however, informed the design of a refined study with longer follow-up and group stratification, further aiming to assess the efficacy of thermography to reduce ulcer recurrence.

Reliability of a novel thermal imaging system for temperature assessment of healthy feet.

BACKGROUND: Thermal imaging is a useful modality for identifying preulcerative lesions ("hot spots") in diabetic foot patients. Despite its recognised potential, at present, there is no readily available instrument for routine podiatric assessment of patients at risk. To address this need, a novel thermal imaging system was recently developed. This paper reports the reliability of this device for temperature assessment of healthy feet. METHODS: Plantar skin foot temperatures were measured with the novel thermal imaging device (Diabetic Foot Ulcer Prevention System (DFUPS), constructed by Photometrix Imaging Ltd) and also with a hand-held infrared spot thermometer (Thermofocus® 01500A3, Tecnimed, Italy) after 20 min of barefoot resting with legs supported and extended in 105 subjects (52 males and 53 females; age range 18 to 69 years) as part of a multicentre clinical trial. The temperature differences between the right and left foot at five regions of interest (ROIs), including 1st and 4th toes, 1st, 3rd and 5th metatarsal heads were calculated. The intra-instrument agreement (three repeated measures) and the inter-instrument agreement (hand-held thermometer and thermal imaging device) were quantified using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Both devices showed almost perfect agreement in replication by instrument. The intra-instrument ICCs for the thermal imaging device at all five ROIs ranged from 0.95 to 0.97 and the intra-instrument ICCs for the hand-held-thermometer ranged from 0.94 to 0.97. There was substantial to perfect inter-instrument agreement between the hand-held thermometer and the thermal imaging device and the ICCs at all five ROIs ranged between 0.94 and 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the performance of a novel thermal imaging device in the assessment of foot temperatures in healthy volunteers in comparison with a hand-held infrared thermometer. The newly developed thermal imaging device showed very good agreement in repeated temperature assessments at defined ROIs as well as substantial to perfect agreement in temperature assessment with the hand-held infrared thermometer. In addition to the reported non-inferior performance in temperature assessment, the thermal imaging device holds the potential to provide an instantaneous thermal image of all sites of the feet (plantar, dorsal, lateral and medial views). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Diabetic Foot Ulcer Prevention System NCT02317835, registered December 10, 2014.

A medical thermal imaging device for the prevention of diabetic foot ulceration.

In this paper a description is given of the development, characterisation and first results of a thermal imaging device aimed at significantly reducing the incidence of diabetic foot ulceration (DFU). These devices will be used in three clinical centres and in two preliminary clinical trials. The first will be on healthy volunteers to set a robust baseline for the overall research aims and the second on >100 patients at high risk of DFU. In the second phase of the project the objective is to demonstrate significant reduction in the incidence of DFU through a comparison of the results of standard care of high risk feet with standard care plus thermal imaging.

A comparison of electrosurgery and sharp debridement in the treatment of chronic neurovascular, neurofibrous and hard corns. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

A randomised controlled trial was undertaken to compare treatment outcomes for neurovascular, neurofibrous and hard corns. Patients with suitable lesions were referred from community clinics within Manchester PCT. Fifty-nine subjects were enrolled into the study and randomised to one of two treatment groups; group (a) those treated with electrosurgery and (b) a control group treated with standard sharp debridement. The principle outcome measure was the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score (0, no pain; 10, worst pain experienced) and lesions were categorised as demonstrating no change, partial or complete resolution. Data were analysed using 'Intention to Treat' methodology, i.e. analysis of data from subjects randomised to each group (electrosurgery group n=34; control group n=25). The results show a statistically significant reduction in pain in group (a) as reported at the 6 month review (p=0.0001) with a complete and partial resolution rate of 26% and 50%, respectively compared with group (b) whose pain level reduction was not significant and which showed resolution rates of 4% and 28% only.