Search

Background and Objectives: Lower extremity amputations (LEAs) represent a significant health problem. The aim of our study was to analyse the type and trends of diabetes-related LEAs in patients hospitalized in one surgical centre in Bucharest between 2018 and 2021. The second aim was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trends of LEAs. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all lower limb amputations performed between 01 January 2018 and 31 December 2021 in the Department of Surgery, Dr. I. Cantacuzino Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. We evaluated demographic parameters, type of LEA, the level, the laterality and trends of the amputations, the main aetiologies leading to amputation, and the length of hospitalization. Results: During the study period, 1711 patients underwent an LEA. The mean age was 64.53 ± 9.93 years, 71.6% (n = 1481) being over 60. Men outnumbered women by a ratio of 3.62:1. The most frequent interventions were ray amputations in 41.2% (n = 705) of patients; then, there were amputations of the toe (20.4%, n = 349), transtibial amputations (18.9%, n = 323), transfemoral amputations (10.6%, n = 181), and midfoot amputations (9%, n = 154). Wet gangrene was the most frequent aetiology (40.9%, n = 699). The total number of LEAs decreased constantly throughout the analysed period, such that 616 LEAs were performed in 2018 and 323 LEAs in 2021 (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the rate of major LEAs in the pandemic vs. pre-pandemic period (37% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In our study, the total number of LEAs decreased throughout the analysed period, but there was an increase in the rate of major LEAs in the pandemic vs. pre-pandemic period. Being over 65 years of age, leucocytosis, sepsis at presentation, and diabetic polyneuropathy were important risk factors for the necessity of LEA in complicated diabetes-related foot disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes‐related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian and global disease burdens and requires proportionate volumes of research to address. Bibliometric analyses are rigorous methods for exploring total research publications in a field to help identify volume trends, gaps and emerging areas of need. This bibliometric review aimed to explore the volume, authors, institutions, journals, collaborating countries, research types and funding sources of Australian publications investigating DFD over 50 years. Methods: A systematic search of the Scopus® database was conducted by two independent authors to identify all Australian DFD literature published between 1970 and 2023. Bibliometric meta‐data were extracted from Scopus®, analyzed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface, and publication volumes, authors, institutions, journals and collaborative countries were described. Publications were also categorised for research type and funding source. Results: Overall, 332 eligible publications were included. Publication volume increased steadily over time, with largest volumes (78%) and a 7‐fold increase over the last decade. Mean co‐authors per publication was 5.6, mean journal impact factor was 2.9 and median citation was 9 (IQR2‐24). Most frequent authors were Peter Lazzarini (14%), Vivienne Chuter (8%) and Jonathon Golledge (7%). Most frequent institutions affiliated were Queensland University Technology (33%), University Sydney (30%) and James Cook University (25%). Most frequent journals published in were Journal Foot and Ankle Research (17%), Diabetic Medicine (7%), Journal Diabetes and its Complications (4%) and International Wound Journal (4%). Most frequent collaborating countries were the United Kingdom (9%), the Netherlands (6%) and the United States (5%). Leading research types were etiology (38%), treatment evaluation (25%) and health services research (13%). Leading funding sources were no funding (60%), internal institution (16%) and industry/philanthropic/international (10%). Conclusions: Australian DFD research increased steadily until more dramatic increases were seen over the past decade. Most research received no funding and mainly investigated etiology, existing treatments or health services. Australian DFD researchers appear to be very productive, particularly in recent times, despite minimal funding indicating their resilience. However, if the field is to continue to rapidly grow and address the very large national DFD burden, much more research funding is needed in Australia, especially targeting prevention and clinical trials of new treatments in DFD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) are known to have high prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus and high incidence of diabetes-related foot disease. Diabetes-related foot disease can lead to lower limb amputation and is associated with poor outcomes, with increased morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of diabetes-related foot disease management in selected countries in PICTs and to identify potential barriers in management of diabetes-related foot disease management in the region. Methods A cross-sectional survey was sent to eleven hospitals across six selected PICTs. The survey instrument was designed to provide an overview of diabetes-related foot disease (number of admissions, and number of lower limb amputations over 12 months) and to identify clinical services available within each institution. Two open-ended questions (free text responses) were included in the instrument to explore initiatives that have helped to improve management and treatment of diabetes-related foot diseases, as well as obstacles that clinicians have encountered in management of diabetes-related foot disease. The survey was conducted over 6 weeks. Results Seven hospitals across four countries provided responses. Number of admissions and amputations related to diabetes-related foot disease were only reported as an estimate by clinicians. Diabetes-related foot disease was managed primarily by general medicine physician, general surgeon and/or orthopaedic surgeon in the hospitals surveyed, as there were no subspecialty services in the region. Only one hospital had access to outpatient podiatry. Common themes identified around barriers faced in management of diabetes-related foot disease by clinicians were broadly centred around resource availability, awareness and education, and professional development. Conclusion Despite the high prevalence of diabetes-related foot disease within PICTs, there appears to be a lack of functional multi-disciplinary foot services (MDFs). To improve the outcomes for diabetes-related foot disease patients in the region, there is a need to establish functional MDFs and engage international stakeholders to provide ongoing supports in the form of education, mentoring, as well as physical resources.

Background and Objectives: Lower extremity amputations (LEAs) represent a significant health problem. The aim of our study was to analyse the type and trends of diabetes-related LEAs in patients hospitalized in one surgical centre in Bucharest between 2018 and 2021. The second aim was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trends of LEAs. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all lower limb amputations performed between 01 January 2018 and 31 December 2021 in the Department of Surgery, Dr. I. Cantacuzino Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. We evaluated demographic parameters, type of LEA, the level, the laterality and trends of the amputations, the main aetiologies leading to amputation, and the length of hospitalization. Results: During the study period, 1711 patients underwent an LEA. The mean age was 64.53 ± 9.93 years, 71.6% (n = 1481) being over 60. Men outnumbered women by a ratio of 3.62:1. The most frequent interventions were ray amputations in 41.2% (n = 705) of patients; then, there were amputations of the toe (20.4%, n = 349), transtibial amputations (18.9%, n = 323), transfemoral amputations (10.6%, n = 181), and midfoot amputations (9%, n = 154). Wet gangrene was the most frequent aetiology (40.9%, n = 699). The total number of LEAs decreased constantly throughout the analysed period, such that 616 LEAs were performed in 2018 and 323 LEAs in 2021 (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the rate of major LEAs in the pandemic vs. pre-pandemic period (37% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In our study, the total number of LEAs decreased throughout the analysed period, but there was an increase in the rate of major LEAs in the pandemic vs. pre-pandemic period. Being over 65 years of age, leucocytosis, sepsis at presentation, and diabetic polyneuropathy were important risk factors for the necessity of LEA in complicated diabetes-related foot disease.

Background: Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) are known to have high prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus and high incidence of diabetes-related foot disease. Diabetes-related foot disease can lead to lower limb amputation and is associated with poor outcomes, with increased morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of diabetes-related foot disease management in selected countries in PICTs and to identify potential barriers in management of diabetes-related foot disease management in the region. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was sent to eleven hospitals across six selected PICTs. The survey instrument was designed to provide an overview of diabetes-related foot disease (number of admissions, and number of lower limb amputations over 12 months) and to identify clinical services available within each institution. Two open-ended questions (free text responses) were included in the instrument to explore initiatives that have helped to improve management and treatment of diabetes-related foot diseases, as well as obstacles that clinicians have encountered in management of diabetes-related foot disease. The survey was conducted over 6 weeks. Results: Seven hospitals across four countries provided responses. Number of admissions and amputations related to diabetes-related foot disease were only reported as an estimate by clinicians. Diabetes-related foot disease was managed primarily by general medicine physician, general surgeon and/or orthopaedic surgeon in the hospitals surveyed, as there were no subspecialty services in the region. Only one hospital had access to outpatient podiatry. Common themes identified around barriers faced in management of diabetes-related foot disease by clinicians were broadly centred around resource availability, awareness and education, and professional development. Conclusion: Despite the high prevalence of diabetes-related foot disease within PICTs, there appears to be a lack of functional multi-disciplinary foot services (MDFs). To improve the outcomes for diabetes-related foot disease patients in the region, there is a need to establish functional MDFs and engage international stakeholders to provide ongoing supports in the form of education, mentoring, as well as physical resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes‐related foot disease is a serious and common complication for people with diabetes mellitus. The gold standard care for a person with diabetes‐related foot disease is the involvement of a multidisciplinary foot team engaged in evidence‐based care. To date, there are seven International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines published to assist healthcare providers in managing diabetes‐related foot disease around the world. This review discusses the acute management of diabetes‐related foot infection with insights from experts of various specialities (internal medicine, infectious disease, vascular surgery, radiology) with a discussion on the implementation of IWGDF guidelines in real life practice and the challenges that healthcare providers may face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes is a key risk factor for ischaemic foot disease, which causes pain, tissue loss, hospital admission, and major amputation. Currently, treatment focuses on revascularisation, but many patients are unsuitable for surgery and revascularisation is frequently unsuccessful. The authors describe recent research in animal models and clinical trials investigating novel medical targets for ischaemia, including theories about impaired wound healing, animal models for limb ischaemia and recent randomised controlled trials testing novel medical therapies. Novel targets identified in animal models included stimulating mobilisation of CD34+ progenitor cells through upregulating oncostatin M or microRNA‐181, downregulating tumour necrosis factor superfamily member 14, or activating the Wingless pathway. Within the ischaemic limb vasculature, upregulation of apolipoprotein L domain containing 1, microRNA‐130b or long noncoding RNA that enhances endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression promoted limb blood supply recovery, angiogenesis, and arteriogenesis. Similarly, administration of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators riociguat or praliciguat or 3‐ketoacyl‐CoA thiolase inhibitor trimetazidine promoted blood flow recovery. Translating pre‐clinical findings to patients has been challenging, mainly due to limitations in clinically translatable animal models of human disease. Promising results have been reported for administering plasmids encoding hepatocyte growth factor or intra‐arterial injection of bone marrow derived cells in small clinical trials. It remains to be seen whether these high resource therapies can be developed to be widely applicable. In conclusion, an ever‐expanding list of potential targets for medical revascularisation is being identified. It is hoped that through ongoing research and further larger clinical trials, these will translate into new broadly applicable therapies to improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Diabetes‐related foot disease is a major source of patient burden and societal costs. Investing in evidence‐based international guidelines on diabetes‐related foot disease is important to reduce this burden and costs, provided the guidelines are focused on outcomes important to key stakeholders and are evidence‐based and properly implemented. Materials and Methods: The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published and updated international guidelines since 1999. The 2023 updates were made using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation evidence‐to‐decision framework. This concerns formulating relevant clinical questions and important outcomes, conducting systematic reviews of the literature and meta‐analyses where appropriate, completing summary of judgement tables, and writing recommendations that are specific, unambiguous and actionable, along with their transparent rationale. Results: We herein describe the development of the 2023 IWGDF Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetes‐related foot disease, which consists of seven chapters, each prepared by a separate working group of international experts. These chapters provide guidelines related to diabetes‐related foot disease on prevention; classification of diabetes‐related foot ulcer, offloading, peripheral artery disease, infection, wound healing interventions, and active Charcot neuro‐osteoarthropathy. Based on these seven guidelines, the IWGDF Editorial Board also produced a set of practical guidelines. Each guideline underwent extensive review by the members of the IWGDF Editorial Board as well as independent international experts in each field. Conclusions: We believe that the adoption and implementation of the 2023 IWGDF guidelines by healthcare providers, public health agencies, and policymakers will improve the prevention and management of diabetes‐related foot disease, and subsequently reduce the worldwide patient and societal burden caused by this disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is one of the most prevalent causes of global hospitalisation and morbidity, and it accounts for up to 75% of lower-extremity amputations globally. The 5-year mortality rate following any amputation ranges from 53% to 100%. Early identification of wounds and multidisciplinary management can reduce amputation rates by 39-56%. Rural and remote communities and Indigenous populations are disproportionately affected by DFD. This is reflected in amputation rates, which are much higher for Indigenous than for non-Indigenous Australians and for those in very remote areas than for those in major cities or inner regional areas. The large geographical spread of the population in Australia is a substantial barrier for those providing or accessing health services, particularly multidisciplinary and specialist services, which undoubtedly contributes to poorer DFD outcomes in rural and remote communities. Methods: A real-time, video-based telehealth service for DFD management was established at the Royal Adelaide Hospital Vascular Services clinic to improve access to specialist services for rural and remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. An exploratory qualitative study that utilised one-on-one, semi-structured interviews was conducted with 11 participants who identified as Aboriginal and who had participated in the telehealth foot service. Interviews were transcribed, de-identified and analysed using thematic analysis, using an inductive approach. Results: Four interrelated themes emerged. 'Practical benefits of staying home' describes the reduced burden of travel and advantages of having local healthcare providers and support people at consultations. 'Access to specialists and facilities' highlights how some participants felt that there was a lack of appropriate facilities in their area and appreciated the improved access telehealth provided. 'Feeling reassured that a specialist has seen their feet' reflects the positive impact on wellbeing that participants experienced when their feet were seen by specialist health staff. 'Facilitates communication' describes how participants felt included in consultations and how seeing a person on screen assisted conversation. Conclusion: The advantages of real-time, video-based telehealth go beyond reduced travel burden and improved access to specialist care. This model of care may facilitate relationship-building, patient wellbeing, and feelings of trust and safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander DFD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is one of the most prevalent causes of global hospitalisation and morbidity, and it accounts for up to 75% of lower-extremity amputations globally. The 5-year mortality rate following any amputation ranges from 53% to 100%. Early identification of wounds and multidisciplinary management can reduce amputation rates by 39-56%. Rural and remote communities and Indigenous populations are disproportionately affected by DFD. This is reflected in amputation rates, which are much higher for Indigenous than for non-Indigenous Australians and for those in very remote areas than for those in major cities or inner regional areas. The large geographical spread of the population in Australia is a substantial barrier for those providing or accessing health services, particularly multidisciplinary and specialist services, which undoubtedly contributes to poorer DFD outcomes in rural and remote communities. Methods: A real-time, video-based telehealth service for DFD management was established at the Royal Adelaide Hospital Vascular Services clinic to improve access to specialist services for rural and remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. An exploratory qualitative study that utilised one-on-one, semi-structured interviews was conducted with 11 participants who identified as Aboriginal and who had participated in the telehealth foot service. Interviews were transcribed, de-identified and analysed using thematic analysis, using an inductive approach. Results: Four interrelated themes emerged. 'Practical benefits of staying home' describes the reduced burden of travel and advantages of having local healthcare providers and support people at consultations. 'Access to specialists and facilities' highlights how some participants felt that there was a lack of appropriate facilities in their area and appreciated the improved access telehealth provided. 'Feeling reassured that a specialist has seen their feet' reflects the positive impact on wellbeing that participants experienced when their feet were seen by specialist health staff. 'Facilitates communication' describes how participants felt included in consultations and how seeing a person on screen assisted conversation. Conclusion: The advantages of real-time, video-based telehealth go beyond reduced travel burden and improved access to specialist care. This model of care may facilitate relationship-building, patient wellbeing, and feelings of trust and safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander DFD patients.

Background: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a common, costly, and severe complication of diabetes mellitus. DFD is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and poses a significant burden on patients, healthcare systems and society. While the detrimental impact of DFD is widely recognised, the precise financial implications of its management in Australia remain unclear due to inconsistent and inconclusive contemporary data. Therefore, the aim of this review was to identify, summarise and synthesise existing evidence to estimate the costs associated with DFD management in Australia. Methods: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and the Cochrane Library from November 2011 to July 2023. Australian studies investigating costs associated with DFD management were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment steps. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) checklist was used to assess study quality. A descriptive analysis was performed due to limited existing evidence and large heterogeneity between study populations to conduct meta-analyses. Results: Three economic evaluations were included in the review. One study was rated as 'poor', one as 'very good' and one as 'excellent' when assessed against the CHEERS checklist. The estimated cost of DFD management varied between studies and comparisons were not possible due to the different methodological approaches and data sources. The studies were unable to provide an overall cost of DFD with respect to all aspects of care as they did not capture the multi-faceted level of care throughout the entire patient journey between sectors and over time. Conclusion: There is limited contemporary evidence for the costs associated with DFD management within Australia, particularly related to direct costs and resource utilisation. Further research into the economic impact of DFD management is needed to inform optimisation of national service delivery and improve health outcomes for individuals with DFD in Australia. Integrating real-world data on impact of clinical interventions with parallel economic evaluation could be a valuable approach for future research, which would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical and economic outcomes beyond solely model-based evaluations. Trial registration: PROSPERO Registration No. CRD42022290910. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) accounts for up to 75% of lower-extremity amputations globally. Rural and remote communities are disproportionately affected by DFD. Telehealth has been advocated as a strategy to improve equity of access to health care in rural and remote communities. Current literature suggests that successful implementation of telehealth requires access to adequate reliable equipment, staff training, and support. A real-time video-based telehealth foot service (TFS) for delivering DFD management has recently been established in a Vascular Surgery and Podiatry clinic within a large South Australian metropolitan hospital. The purpose of this study was to gain insights into the experiences of rural and remote health professionals utilising the TFS, as this could be invaluable in optimising the uptake of telehealth use in DFD. Methods: This exploratory, descriptive qualitative study employed one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with health professionals who utilised the service. Thematic analysis using an essentialist inductive approach was employed. Results: Participants included 14 rural and remote health professionals; 2 general practitioners, 2 nurses, 1 Aboriginal Health Practitioner, and 9 podiatrists. In addition, 2 metropolitan-based TFS staff were interviewed. Five key themes were identified. 'Patients have reduced travel burden' included that telehealth enabled Indigenous patients to stay on country. 'Patients had increased psychosocial support' covered the benefits of having health professionals who knew the patient present in consults. 'Improved access' incorporated how telehealth improved interprofessional relationship building and communication. 'Technological and equipment challenges' highlighted that poor network connectivity and poor access to equipment to conduct telehealth consults in rural areas were barriers. The last theme,'Lack of service communication to rural health professionals', highlighted the need for communication around service details. Conclusion: Telehealth is a valuable tool that can improve access to treatment for rural and remote Indigenous DFD patients. While this has the potential to improve DFD outcomes, empirical data is required to confirm outcomes. Considering the advantages of telehealth and rural staff shortages, there is an urgent need for investment in improved equipment and processes and an understanding of the training needs of the health care workforce to support the use of telehealth in DFD management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD), defined as ulceration, infe ction or destruction of tissues of the foot in a person with current or previously diagnosed diabetes mellitus, is associated with a heavy burden for both patients and the healthcare system with high morbidity, mortality and costs. Improved outcomes for people with DFD are achieved with an interdisciplinary approach and adherence to best practice clinical guidelines; however, in the Australian context, the vastness of the country presents unique challenges in achieving optimal outcomes for all people with DFD, with variation in service delivery, availability and accessibility between metropolitan, rural and remote areas. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and people with diabetes living in rural and remote areas experience higher rates of lower-extremity amputation, and further efforts and resources are required to im prove outcomes for these high-risk groups. In recent years, there have been advances in knowledge, including the understanding of the pathogenesis of diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy, genetic polymorphisms and mechanisms of disease associated with acute Charcot neuroarthropathy, biomarkers and potential mediators of diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) healing, the microbiology and microbiome profil e of DFUs, pressure assessment and management as well as an expanded understanding of DFU sequelae and comorbidities. In this review, we describe new insights into pathophysiology, sequelae and comorbidities of DFD with a focus on basic and translational aspects and contributions to the field from Australian and New Zealand DFD r esearchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing evidence that alongside traditional risk factors, such as ischaemia, neuropathy and structural anomalies, social deprivation plays a significant role in the development of diabetic foot ulceration. This paper examines social deprivation in the Scottish context and evaluates how social determinants of health can impact people with diabetic foot ulcers in Scotland; assess the suitability of the 'House of Care' model and consider how community development can be used to improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes-related foot ulcers pose substantial health risks globally, yet the biomechanical intricacies underlying their development remain incompletely understood. This study aimed to evaluate lower limb gait joint coordination variability in individuals with diabetes-related foot ulcers compared to those with diabetes (without diabetes-related foot ulcers) and healthy controls. A total of 99 participants (diabetes-related foot ulcers cases – 16, Diabetes controls – 50, Health controls – 33) compared three self-paced walking trials. Vector coding, a technique quantifying movement coordination, was employed, analysing hip-knee, knee-ankle, and hip-angle joint couplings in the sagittal plane. No significant differences in coordination variability were found among the groups. However, distinct coupling pattern frequencies emerged, with diabetes-related foot ulcers cases exhibiting unique anti-phase hip and ankle coupling frequency counts compared to healthy controls. These findings challenge conventional understandings of diabetes-related foot ulcers biomechanics and underscore the complexity of gait in this population. • No significant gait coordination variability differences were found across diabetes and healthy groups. • Distinct anti-phase hip and ankle movements seen in foot ulcers, unlike healthy controls. • Findings challenge traditional views of foot ulcer biomechanics, highlighting gait complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is one of the most common, costly and severe complications of diabetes, which poses a substantial burden on patients, healthcare systems and society. Contemporary data on the financial burden of DFD treatment in Australia is ambiguous. Therefore, the aim of this proposed protocol is to identify, summarise and synthesise existing evidence by undertaking a systematic review to estimate the costs associated with DFD treatment in Australia. Methods This systematic review will conduct searches in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP and the Cochrane Library from November 2011 to November 2021. Peer-reviewed articles evaluating the costs associated with DFD treatment within Australia will be included. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022). A meta-analysis of estimated costs will be performed if data from included studies are sufficiently homogenous, otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be used. Discussion The results of this systematic review will provide insight into the current economic impact of DFD management within Australia. Such data may help to inform optimisation of national service delivery and result in improved outcomes for individuals with DFD in Australia. Registration PROSPERO Registration No. CRD42022290910 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no current Australian guidelines on the prevention of diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU). A national expert panel aimed to systematically identify and adapt suitable international guidelines to the Australian context to create new Australian evidence-based guidelines on prevention of first-ever and/or recurrent DFU. These guidelines will include for the first-time considerations for rural and remote, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Methods: The National Health and Medical Research Council procedures were followed to adapt suitable international guidelines on DFU prevention to the Australian health context. This included a search of public databases after which the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) prevention guideline was deemed the most appropriate for adaptation. The 16 IWGDF prevention recommendations were assessed using the ADAPTE and GRADE systems to decide if they should be adopted, adapted or excluded for the new Australian guideline. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendation ratings were re-evaluated with reference to the Australian context. This guideline underwent public consultation, further revision, and approval by national peak bodies. Results: Of the 16 original IWGDF prevention recommendations, nine were adopted, six were adapted and one was excluded. It is recommended that all people at increased risk of DFU are assessed at intervals corresponding to the IWGDF risk ratings. For those at increased risk, structured education about appropriate foot protection, inspection, footwear, weight-bearing activities, and foot self-care is recommended. Prescription of orthotic interventions and/or medical grade footwear, providing integrated foot care, and self-monitoring of foot skin temperatures (contingent on validated, user-friendly and affordable systems becoming available in Australia) may also assist in preventing DFU. If the above recommended non-surgical treatment fails, the use of various surgical interventions for the prevention of DFU can be considered. Conclusions: This new Australian evidence-based guideline on prevention of DFU, endorsed by 10 national peak bodies, provides specific recommendations for relevant health professionals and consumers in the Australian context to prevent DFU. Following these recommendations should achieve better DFU prevention outcomes in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes-related foot infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality, both globally and in Australia. There is a need for up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to ensure optimal management of patients with diabetes-related foot infections. We aimed to identify and adapt high quality international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guideline for people with a diabetes-related foot infection. Methods: Following Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) procedures we identified the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines as suitable for adaptation to the Australian context. Guidelines were screened, assessed and judged by an expert panel for the Australian context using the guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Judgements led to recommendations being adopted, adapted or excluded, with additional consideration regarding their implementation, monitoring and future research for the Australian context. Clinical pathways were then developed to assist implementation. Results: Of 36 original diabetes-related foot infection IWGDF sub-recommendations, 31 were adopted, four were adapted and one was excluded. Adaption was primarily undertaken due to differences or clarification of the sub-recommendations' intended population. One sub-recommendation was excluded due to substantial differences in judgements between the panel and IWGDF and unacceptable heterogeneity of the target population. Therefore, we developed 35 evidence-based sub-recommendations for the Australian context that should guide best practice diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infection in Australia. Additionally, we incorporated these sub-recommendations into two clinical pathways to assist Australian health professionals to implement these evidence-based sub-recommendations into clinical practice. The six guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/. Conclusions: A new national guideline for the diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infections were successfully developed for the Australian context. In combination with simplified clinical pathway tools they provide an evidence-based framework to ensure best management of individuals with diabetes-related foot infections across Australia and highlight considerations for implementation and monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian disease burden. The 2011 Australian DFD guidelines were outdated. We aimed to develop methodology for systematically adapting suitable international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guidelines for DFD. Methods: We followed the Australian National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines for adapting guidelines. We systematically searched for all international DFD guideline records. All identified records were independently screened and assessed for eligibility. Those deemed eligible were further assessed and included if scoring at least moderate quality, suitability and currency using AGREE II and NHMRC instruments. The included international guidelines had all recommendations extracted into six sub-fields: prevention, wound classification, peripheral artery disease, infection, offloading and wound healing. Six national panels, each comprising 6–8 multidisciplinary national experts, screened all recommendations within their sub-field for acceptability and applicability in Australia using an ADAPTE form. Where panels were unsure of any acceptability and applicability items, full assessments were undertaken using a GRADE Evidence to Decision tool. Recommendations were adopted, adapted, or excluded, based on the agreement between the panel's and international guideline's judgements. Each panel drafted a guideline that included all their recommendations, rationale, justifications, and implementation considerations. All underwent public consultation, final revision, and approval by national peak bodies. Results: We screened 182 identified records, assessed 24 full text records, and after further quality, suitability, and currency assessment, one record was deemed a suitable international guideline, the International Working Group Diabetic Foot Guidelines (IWGDF guidelines). The six panels collectively assessed 100 IWGDF recommendations, with 71 being adopted, 27 adapted, and two excluded for the Australian context. We received 47 public consultation responses with > 80% (strongly) agreeing that the guidelines should be approved, and ten national peak bodies endorsed the final six guidelines. The six guidelines and this protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ Conclusion: New Australian evidence-based guidelines for DFD have been developed for the first time in a decade by adapting suitable international guidelines. The methodology developed for adaptation may be useful for other foot-related conditions. These new guidelines will now serve as the national multidisciplinary best practice standards of DFD care in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The aim of this bibliometric study was to examine trends in the quality and quantity of published diabetes‐related foot disease (DRFD) research in Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ) over the past five decades. Method In July 2021, the Scopus® database was searched for DRFD‐related publications (1970–2020) using predetermined search and inclusion criteria. Bibliometric data were extracted from Scopus® and Journal Citation Reports. Retrieved bibliometric indicators were analysed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface and reported using descriptive statistics. Results Forty‐seven DRFD‐related articles were identified. The annual number of publications showed a significant upward trend increasing from one in 1988 to a peak of six in 2018 (P

Background: The aim of this bibliometric study was to examine trends in the quality and quantity of published diabetes-related foot disease (DRFD) research in Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ) over the past five decades. Method: In July 2021, the Scopus® database was searched for DRFD-related publications (1970–2020) using predetermined search and inclusion criteria. Bibliometric data were extracted from Scopus® and Journal Citation Reports. Retrieved bibliometric indicators were analysed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface and reported using descriptive statistics. Results: Forty-seven DRFD-related articles were identified. The annual number of publications showed a significant upward trend increasing from one in 1988 to a peak of six in 2018 (P < 0.001). The majority of identified articles (n = 31, 66%) were published in the last decade (2011–2020). Basic/clinical research accounted for 87% (n = 41) of publications and 14 (30%) investigated the screening and/or prevention of DRFD. The average citation per article was 20.23 (range: 0–209) and the median impact factor was 4.31 (range, 1.82–79.32). Over a third of articles (36%) had an international authorship network. Funding was reported in 15 (32%) articles; 12 (26%) were supported by public national grants vs. three (6%) reporting industry-sponsorship. Conclusion: DRFD articles authored by NZ researchers have increased over the past five decades. Despite NZ researchers having increased their global impact through collaborative networks, most of the research was classified as low-level evidence, with limited focus on Indigenous Māori and limited financial support and funding. Increased funding for interventional research is required to enable a higher level of evidence-based and practice-changing research to occur. With rates of diabetes-related amputations higher in Māori future research must focus on reducing inequalities in diabetes-related outcomes for Māori by specifically targeting the prevention and screening of DRFD in primary care settings in NZ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes-related foot disease is commonly perceived by the public and clinicians to be associated with foot ulcers, gangrene and amputation. Current NHS resources and clinical services involved with foot disease are directed at identifying and tackling foot risks, to help prevent potentially avoidable amputations. However, most of the significant complications of lower-limb diabetes are also associated with a dramatically increased risk of modifiable cardiovascular events and early death. Although people with diabetes-related foot disease have a higher risk of dying early from associated complications than they have of losing a leg, public awareness of this is low. This is a difficult and sensitive area of patient education to tackle and most current patient information resources tend to avoid it. There are no specific support or guidance materials available currently, to help clinicians tackle this key issue with foot disease. Consequently, there are no patient awareness and information resources readily available, to help inform people with foot disease about their specific associated risks of amputation, cardiovascular events and early death, or target specific cardiovascular risk-reducing opportunities and effective interventions, to help improve the survival of both limbs and lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a widely feared complication among people who live with diabetes. In Australia and globally, rates of disability, cardio-vascular disease, lower extremity amputation, and mortality are significantly increased in patients with DFD. In order to understand and prevent these outcomes, we analyse the common pathogenetic processes of neuropathy, arterial disease, and infection. The review then summarises important management considerations through the interdisciplinary lens. Using Australian and international guidelines, we offer a stepwise, evidence-based practical approach to the care of patients with DFD., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report having no relevant conflicts of interest for this article., (©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To determine trends in the incidence of hospitalizations and amputations for diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) in Australia.Methods: We included 70,766 people with type 1, and 1,087,706 with type 2 diabetes from the Australian diabetes registry from 2010 to 2019, linked to hospital admissions databases. Trends in age-adjusted incidence were summarized as annual percent changes (APC).Results: In people with type 1 diabetes, total DFD hospitalizations increased from 20.8 to 30.5 per 1,000 person-years between 2010 and 2019 (APC: 5.1% (95% CI: 3.5, 6.8)), including increases for ulceration (13.3% (2.9, 24.7)), osteomyelitis (5.6% (2.7, 8.7)), peripheral arterial disease (7.7% (3.7, 11.9)), and neuropathy (8.7% (5.5, 12.0)). In people with type 2 diabetes, DFD hospitalizations changed from 18.6 to 24.8 per 1,000 person-years between 2010 and 2019 (APC: 4.5% (3.6, 5.4); 2012-2019), including increases for ulceration (8.7% (4.0, 13.7)), cellulitis (5.4% (3.7, 7.0)), osteomyelitis (6.7% (5.7, 7.7)), and neuropathy (6.9% (5.2, 8.5)). Amputations were stable in type 1, whereas in type 2, above knee amputations decreased (-6.0% (-9.1, -2.7). Adjustment for diabetes duration attenuated the magnitude of most increases, but many remained significant.Conclusions: DFD hospitalizations increased markedly in Australia, mainly driven by ulceration and neuropathy, highlighting the importance of managing DFD to prevent hospitalizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a major public health concern due to the higher risks of hospitalisation. However, estimates of the prevalence of DFD in the general population are not available in Australia. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of DFD and diabetes-related lower-extremity amputation (DLEA) among people aged 45 years and over in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The NSW 45 and Up Study baseline survey data of 267,086 persons aged 45 years and over, linked with health services' administrative data from 2006 to 2012 were used in our study. Of these, 28,210 individuals had been diagnosed with diabetes, and our study identified 3035 individuals with DFD. The prevalence of DFD, diabetic foot ulcer (DFU), diabetic foot infection (DFI), diabetic gangrene (DG), and DLEA were 10.8% (95%CI: 10.3, 11.2), 5.4% (95% CI: 5.1, 5.8), 5.2% (95%CI: 4.9, 5.5), 0.4% (95%CI: 0.3, 0.5), and 0.9% (95%CI: 0.7, 1.0), respectively. DFD, DFU, DFI, DG, and DLEA were the most common among those who were older, born in Australia, from low-income households (