Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot During

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot During Barefoot Walking Michael J Mueller, Dequan Zou, Kathryn L Bohnert, Lori J Tuttle and David R Sinacore PHYS THER. 2008; 88:1375-1384. Originally published online September 18, 2008 doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080011

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, can be found online at: http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/88/11/1375 Collections

This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the following collection(s): Diabetes Skin Abnormalities and Diseases

e-Letters

To submit an e-Letter on this article, click here or click on "Submit a response" in the right-hand menu under "Responses" in the online version of this article.

E-mail alerts

Sign up here to receive free e-mail alerts

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 2, 2013

Diabetes Special Issue

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot During Barefoot Walking Michael J Mueller, Dequan Zou, Kathryn L Bohnert, Lori J Tuttle, David R Sinacore

Background and Purpose. Patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are at high risk for plantar skin breakdown due to unnoticed plantar stresses during walking. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in stress variables (peak plantar pressure, peak pressure gradient, peak maximal subsurface shear stress, and depth of peak maximal subsurface shear stress) between the forefoot (where most ulcers occur) and the rear foot in subjects with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer measured during barefoot walking. Subjects. Twenty-four subjects participated: 12 with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer (DM⫹PN group) and 12 with no history of diabetes mellitus or peripheral neuropathy (control group). The subjects (11 men, 13 women) had a mean age (⫾SD) of 54⫾8 years.

Methods. Plantar pressures were measured during barefoot walking using a pressure platform. Stress variables were estimated at the forefoot and the rear foot for all subjects.

Results. All stress variables were higher (127%– 871%) in the forefoot than in the rear foot, and the peak pressure gradient showed the greatest difference (538%– 871%). All stress variables were higher in the forefoot in the DM⫹PN group compared with the control group (34%– 85%), and the peak pressure gradient showed the greatest difference (85%). The depth (X⫾SD) of peak maximum subsurface shear stress in the forefoot in the DM⫹PN group was half that in the control group (3.8⫾2.0 versus 8.0⫾4.3 mm, respectively). Discussion and Conclusions. These results indicate that stresses are relatively higher and located closer to the skin surface in locations where skin breakdown is most likely to occur. These stress variables may have additional value in predicting skin injury over the traditionally measured peak plantar pressure, but prospective studies using these variables to predict ulcer risk are needed to test this hypothesis.

MJ Mueller, PT, PhD, FAPTA, is Associate Professor, Program in Physical Therapy and Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8502, 4444 Forest Park Blvd, St Louis, MO 63108 (USA). Address all correspondence to Dr Mueller at: [email protected]. D Zou, DSc, is Assistant Professor, Program in Physical Therapy and Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine. KL Bohnert, MS, CDT, is Research Patient Coordinator, Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine. LJ Tuttle, PT, is a doctoral student, Movement Science Program, Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine. DR Sinacore, PT, PhD, FAPTA, is Associate Professor, Department of Medicine and Program in Physical Therapy, and Director, Applied Kinesiology Laboratory, Washington University School of Medicine. [Mueller MJ, Zou D, Bohnert KL, et al. Plantar stresses on the neuropathic foot during barefoot walking. Phys Ther. 2008;88: 1375–1384.] © 2008 American Physical Therapy Association

Post a Rapid Response or find The Bottom Line: www.ptjournal.org November 2008

Volume 88 Number 11 Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 2, 2013

Physical Therapy f

1375

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot

A

number of important physiological and physical factors combine to contribute to skin breakdown on the feet of people with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy. The most important factors, however, are thought to be unnoticed excessive physical stresses to the insensitive skin.1–3 People with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are particularly susceptible to skin breakdown because they are unable to sense the offending excessive stresses on the bottom of their feet during daily activities such as walking. For the purposes of this study, we focused on the physical stresses contributing to skin breakdown that potentially are modifiable with footwear and orthotic devices. For additional information about the pathophysiology contributing to peripheral neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease, see the related perspective article by Cade4 in this issue. For additional information about the incidence of skin breakdown and amputation in people with diabetes mellitus, see the article by Deshpande et al.5 Even if the perspective is narrowed to physical stresses alone, there are several characteristics of physical stresses that could contribute to skin injury and breakdown. Using the Physical Stress Theory as a theoretical background,6 the key stress variables that contribute to skin injury on the plantar surface of the foot would include the magnitude, time, and direction of stresses. The magnitude of stress is characterized as the peak plantar pressure (PPP) during barefoot and shod walking and has been studied extensively in this population.2,7–9 Time factors include the duration of the pressure applications (pressure-time impulse10 –12), the number of pressure applications (often characterized as the number of steps taken12,13) and the rate of pressure application (not well studied). The primary directions of stress 1376

f

Physical Therapy

application generally are thought of as perpendicular or parallel to the skin surface. Stresses applied perpendicular to the skin are measured using a number of commercially available sensors, but stresses measured parallel to the skin surface (shear stresses) are challenging to measure14 and devices providing established and credible measures are not yet commercially available. Given the number of variables and activities that can influence the skin (eg, walking, stair climbing, footwear); these stresses could combine in an almost infinite number of ways to cause skin injury. Because of the number of mechanical and physiological factors that can combine to cause skin injury and despite a clear association between PPP and location of skin breakdown, a specific threshold of any given stress variable that predicts skin breakdown with good sensitivity and specificity has not been identified.15 Additional research is needed to identify the optimal stress characteristics to predict and understand skin injury. Surface skin pressures generate shear stresses inside the soft tissue of the plantar surface of the foot that contribute to tissue damage. These subsurface shear stresses are caused, in part, by the uneven distribution of stresses across the skin surface. They can be caused by uneven perpendicular forces and are different from traditionally recognized shear stresses that are generated by parallel forces along the surface of the skin. The magnitude and depth of these subsurface shear stresses can be estimated using mechanical laws and theories.16 We have used the pressure distribution on the surface of the skin to estimate the peak maximum shear stress (PMSS) and the depth of the PMSS (D_PMSS) using the potential functions H(x, y, z) and H1(x, y, z) (harmonic functions satisfying Laplace’s equation) by Hook’s law assuming small-strain, smalldeformation theory of elasticity at

any point within the body.16 First, the maximum shear stress is estimated for every level (millimeter) of subsurface tissue within the region of interest. Then, the magnitude of the maximum shear stress is compared among the various levels of tissue. The greatest magnitude of the maximum shear stress compared across all levels is considered the PMSS.16 The spatial change in pressure across the surface of the skin appears to be an important component of predicting these subsurface shear stresses. We previously defined the peak pressure gradient (PPG) as the greatest spatial change in plantar pressure around the PPP location.17 The location of PPP is identified, and then the spatial change in plantar pressure is determined for every direction around the PPP location. The greatest spatial change in plantar pressure (ie, the greatest slope of the pressure distribution) is the PPG. Based on mechanical theories,18 we believe pressures that change substantially across the surface of skin (ie, high PPG) are more damaging than high pressures distributed equally across the skin surface. For example, the hydrostatic pressures experienced by the skin of deep-sea divers may be very high, but divers do not experience skin breakdown because these high pressures are distributed evenly across the surface of the skin (ie, they have a very low PPG). The relationship among various magnitudes of PPG and the resultant calculated PMSS is illustrated in Figure 1 using methods previously reported.16 In this theoretical illustration, PMSS increases as the PPG increases. We have reported on forefoot-to-rear foot differences in these variables in a group of 20 subjects with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy measured during walking with footwear.19 A comparison of forefoot-torear foot differences is important


November 2008


Figure 1. Illustrations of the effect of various peak pressure gradients (PPGs) on peak maximal subsurface shear stresses (PMSSs). Despite having a much greater load (ie, area under curve), the pressure distribution with a flat top (A) has a lower PMSS than pressure distributions with a higher PPG (D). The cone with the highest PPG (C) has the highest PMSS at all depths (E) and is thought to be most damaging at low depths (near the skin surface) despite having the lowest load (ie, area under curve). PPP⫽peak plantar pressure. Values were estimated using methods originally described by Zou et al.16

because most ulcers occur in the forefoot.20,21 In general, the magnitude of the stress variables was much higher and the D_PMSS was closer to the skin surface in the forefoot compared with the rear foot. Furthermore, Lott et al19 compared these variables across groups of subjects with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy, subjects with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a history of skin breakdown, and age- and weight-matched controls. The PPG was particularly different between the controls and the group with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a history of skin breakdown. There are, however, no published reports of these variables during barefoot ambulation. Analysis in the barefoot condition would further help to understand the role of November 2008

mechanical factors in skin breakdown because it would eliminate the influence of footwear and would be a more standardized method of investigating and reporting their role. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the differences in indicators of skin breakdown (PPP, PPG, PMSS, and D_PMSS) between the forefoot and the rear foot in subjects with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer measured during barefoot walking. A secondary purpose was to determine the correlations among these variables. We hypothesized that values would be greater in the forefoot than in the rear foot and greater in the subjects with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer than in the compari-

son group. Furthermore, we speculated, based on mechanical failure theory, that the subjects with skin breakdown would show high values of PMSS that were located close to the skin surface (low D_PMSS values) compared with those without skin breakdown.

Method Subjects Plantar pressure data during walking were collected on one foot of 24 subjects: 12 with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer (DM⫹PN group) and 12 with no history of diabetes mellitus or peripheral neuropathy (control group). A group with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy but without a plantar ulcer was not studied because our previous work showed


Physical Therapy f

1377

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot Table 1. Subject Demographics

Variable Age (y)

Control Group (nⴝ12)

DMⴙPN Groupa (nⴝ12)

X (SD)

X (SD)

P

55 (9)

54 (8)

NSb

Body mass index (kg/m2)

30.6 (3.5)

34.1 (4.7)

NS

Weight (kg)

91.5 (12.3)

105.0 (23.6)

NS

5/7

6/6

NS

Not applicable

11.5 (9.2)

Sex (male/female) Duration of diabetes mellitus (y) a b

DM⫹PN group⫽subjects with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer. NS⫽not significant.

that there were minimal differences between the control group and the group with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer.19 The subjects in the DM⫹PN group were part of a larger study investigating the effects of offloading devices on the healing of plantar ulcers. For the purposes of this study, subjects required a history of diabetes mellitus, evidence of peripheral neuropathy as indicated by inability to sense a 5.07 SemmesWeinstein monofilament on at least one location on the plantar surface of the foot,22,23 no severe midfoot deformity (eg, Charcot arthropathy), and no history of partial foot amputation. The DM⫹PN group (6 men, 6 women) had a mean age (⫾SD) of 54⫾8 years and a mean body mass index (⫾SD) of 34⫾5 kg/m2. All subjects in this group had type 2 diabetes mellitus with a mean duration (⫾SD) of 12⫾9 years, peripheral neuropathy, and a current plantar ulcer. Six subjects had a history of an additional plantar ulcer on the contralateral foot, but data were collected only on the side of an active ulcer. Data were collected on the control subjects on the matched side. The control group was selected from a sample of convenience. The control group was matched on age, weight, and sex with the DM⫹PN group. All subjects signed a consent 1378

f

Physical Therapy

form approved by the Human Research Protection Office of Washington University School of Medicine. Subject characteristics are shown in Table 1. All subjects had a dynamic plantar force and pressure distribution assessment while walking barefoot at their preferred, self-selected walking speed using an EMED ST P-2 pressure platform.* A 2-step method of data collection was used for all trials as previously described because it is reliable and causes less trauma to the barefoot-insensitive foot compared with mid-gait walking.24,25 Three walking trials for each foot were performed over a 7-m raised walkway with the pressure platform embedded flush with the walkway surface. Walking speed was determined using a stopwatch and recorded to the nearest tenth of a second with the subject starting from a standing position and walking 7.6 m (25 ft). Walking speed (X⫾SD) was 68.4⫾20.7 m/min for the control group and 57.1⫾17.7 m/min for the DM⫹PN group (no significant difference, P⬎.05). Each walking trial yielded a single plantar map (step). The 3-dimensional stress components, the principal stresses, and shear stresses in the subsurface tissues were calculated from the measured pressure at the PPP time frame of each gait cycle for the fore-

foot and the rear foot.16 Each plantar map was divided (ie, masked) into forefoot and rear foot regions at 50% of the length of the foot. After masking the plantar map, the magnitude of the PPP was averaged over 3 trial steps in each mask and summarized using Groupmask evaluation software.* The PPG, PMSS, and D_PMSS for each area of interest also were calculated from pressure data averaged over 3 steps during walking.24,25 Custom-written software used the pressure distribution data collected by the EMED system to estimate the PMSS and D_PMSS and to calculate PPG on the forefoot and rear foot of one foot of each subject. The PPG was defined as the maximal spatial change (ie, greatest slope) in surface pressure located around the PPP.17 The PPG at the location of the PPP was calculated after a bicubic polynomial spline smoothing of the pressure data. The PPG was determined in a defined area (3⫻3 sensor pixels, 450 mm2) on nodes (spacing equal to half the length of the sensor pixel), which were generated using the bicubic polynomial spline function. The PPG around the PPP was calculated as the highest change in pressure (pressure gradient) from one node (half pixel apart) to the next node according to rows and to columns and by diagonal.17 The PMSS and D_PMSS were estimated using potential functions and by Hook’s law assuming small strain and small deformation theory of elasticity.16 The maximum shear stress was estimated for every level (millimeter) of tissue within the region of interest. Then, the magnitude of the maximum shear stress was compared among all levels of tissue. The greatest magnitude of the maximum shear stress compared across all subsurface levels was considered the * Novel Electronics Inc, 964 Grand Ave, St Paul, MN 55105.


November 2008

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot PMSS. The D_PMSS was the depth below the skin surface of this value.16

Table 2. Analysis-of-Variance Results and Correlations Among Variablesa

Data Analysis A group (DM⫹PN versus control) ⫻ location (forefoot versus rear foot) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for each of the dependent variables (PPP, PPG, PMSS, and D_PMSS). Individual post hoc t tests were performed on each of the significant group and location comparisons. In addition, PMSS was plotted on the vertical axis and D_PMSS was plotted on the horizontal axis of a graph for all subjects to help determine whether particular values were associated with skin breakdown. Pearson product moment correlations with a Bonferroni correction were used to determine simple correlations among variables for all subjects.

Control Group (nⴝ12) X (SD)

X (SD)

% Difference Between Groups

PPP FF (kPa)

739 (268)

988 (215)

34

.02

PPP RF (kPa)

325 (68)

387 (105)

19

.106 (NS)

127

155

Variable and Location

% difference Between locations

P⬍.001

P⬍.001

68 (37)

102 (30)

85

.02

PPG RF (kPa/mm)

7 (6)

16 (12)

129

.028

% difference

871

538

P⬍.001

P⬍.001

PMSS FF (kPa)

170 (59)

230 (52)

35

.015

PMSS RF (kPa)

70 (29)

93 (21)

33

.039

143

147

P⬍.001

P⬍.001 .007

% difference Between locations D_PMSS FF (mm)

8.0 (4.3)

3.8 (2.0)

111

D_PMSS RF (mm)

12.5 (3.3)

12.5 (2.3)

0

% difference

36

70

P⫽.009

P⬍.001

Between locations

.971 (NS)

Correlations among variables for all subjects (Nⴝ24)

The ANOVA indicated differences in group and location factors for PPP, PPG, PMSS, and D_PMSS (P⬍.05) and a significant group ⫻ location interaction for D_PMSS (P⬍.05). Therefore, individual differences between group and location were analyzed for each variable and are reported in Table 2. Forefoot-to-Rear Foot Comparisons In both groups, stress values were greater and the D_PMSS values were located closer to the skin surface in the forefoot compared with the rear foot (Tab. 2, Fig. 2). The PPP and PMSS values were 2.3 to 2.6 times greater in the forefoot than in the rear foot, and the PPG forefoot values were 9.7 and 6.4 times greater than the rear foot values of the control and DM⫹PN groups, respectively. The D_PMSS values (X⫾SD) were closer to the skin surface in the forefoot (3.8⫾2.0 – 8.0⫾4.3 mm) than the rear foot (12.5⫾3.3 mm), but especially in the DM⫹PN group

November 2008

P

PPG FF (kPa/mm)

Between locations

Results

DMⴙPN Groupb (nⴝ12)

Variable

FF r

RF r

PPP and PPG

.80

.68

PMSS and PPG

.90

.43*

⫺.87

⫺.34*

D_PMSS and PPG PMSS and PPP

.96

.64

D_PMSS and PPP

⫺.73

⫺.20*

PMSS and D_PMSS

⫺.77

.35

a

PPP⫽peak plantar pressure, PPG⫽peak pressure gradient, PMSS⫽peak maximum shear stress, D_PMSS⫽depth of peak maximum shear stress, FF⫽forefoot, RF⫽rear foot. All correlations are significant (Pⱕ.05) except those marked with an asterisk. b DM⫹PN group⫽subjects with diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and a plantar ulcer.

(3.8⫾2.0 mm, significant group ⫻ location interaction, P⬍.05). Group Comparisons Overall, the magnitude of stress variables was higher and the D_PMSS was lower (ie, closer to the skin surface) in the DM⫹PN group than in the control group (Tab. 2, Fig. 2). Forefoot PPP and PMSS values were 34% and 35% greater, respectively, in the DM⫹PN group than in the control group, and the PPG value was 85% greater. In addition to the PMSS

values being 35% greater in the forefoot in the DM⫹PN group compared with the control group, the larger magnitude also was located closer to the skin surface (3.8⫾2.0 versus 8.0⫾4.3 mm). In addition, rear foot PPG and PMSS values were higher in the DM⫹PN group than in the control group (especially the PPG values, which were 129% higher), but these absolute values were still much lower than the forefoot values (Tab. 2).


Physical Therapy f

1379


Figure 2. Peak maximum shear stress (PMSS) and depth of PMSS plotted for all subjects at forefoot (FF) and rear foot (RF) locations. Note that diabetic forefeet with ulcers were grouped together in the left-hand portion of the graph where PMSS was high and depth of PMSS was low.

Figure 2 presents the PMSS values plotted against the D_PMSS values for the forefoot and rear foot of both groups. The PMSS values generally were higher and located much closer to the surface of the skin in the feet with a plantar ulcer in the DM⫹PN group compared with all other locations. The forefeet of the subjects without skin breakdown had relatively low PMSS values (75–250 kPa) and a wide range of D_PMSS values (3–14 mm). Conversely, those subjects with skin breakdown had relatively high values of PMSS (150 – 325 kPa) that were concentrated in low soft tissue depths (3– 4 mm). Rear foot values tended to group in the lower right-hand corner of the graph, where PMSS values were relatively low (25–125 kPa) and D_PMSS values were relatively high (9 –18 mm). Correlations among the stress variables were high in the forefoot (r⫽ ⫺.73 to .96, P⬍.05, Tab. 2). The highest correlation was between PMSS and PPP values (r⫽.96). There were high, inverse correlations 1380

f

Physical Therapy

among PPP, PPG, PMSS, and D_PMSS values (r⫽⫺.73 to ⫺.87), indicating that high values of stress variables were associated with low values of D_PMSS (ie, high stress values were located close to the skin surface). All correlations among variables were lower in the rear foot compared with the forefoot (Tab. 2).

Discussion Consistent with our hypotheses, stress values were higher and the D_PMSS values were lower in the forefoot compared with the rear foot and in the DM⫹PN group compared with the control group (Tab. 2, Fig. 2). We believe these results are important because they help to understand the nature of skin injury and breakdown, in general, but especially in the feet of people with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy. Each of these comparisons will be explored, along with limitations of the study design, implications for patient management, and directions for future study.

High stress values occur in the rear foot and forefoot at heel-strike and push-off, respectively, because bodyweight forces are focused on a relatively small area of the foot compared with forces during mid-stance, when the entire foot is in contact with the ground. The forefoot-to-rear foot comparison is important because most neuropathic ulcers in people with diabetes occur in the forefoot, despite both areas experiencing relatively high stresses.20,21 In our study, all stress variables were higher in the forefoot than in the rear foot (Tab. 2). The PPP values were 2.3 to 2.6 times greater in the forefoot than in the rear foot, which is essentially identical to the results reported by Caselli et al21 (PPP values [X⫾SD] were 2.3⫾2.4 times higher in the forefoot than in the rear foot in a group of subjects with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy). In our study, forefoot-torear foot pressure gradient comparisons were more dramatic than other comparisons; the PPG values were 6.4 to 8.7 times greater in the forefoot than in the rear foot (Tab. 2).


November 2008

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot There are a number of reasons why the forefoot may experience higher stress values than the rear foot. First, soft tissue thickness is about 36% to 48% greater in the rear foot than in the forefoot.26 Soft tissue clearly plays an important role in stress distribution, and the thicker tissue under the rear foot compared with the forefoot may help to distribute stresses evenly to the underlying bony structures. A second reason that stresses may be less in the rear foot compared with the forefoot is the relatively large, rounded surface beneath the calcaneus compared with the smaller circumference of the metatarsal heads in the forefoot (Fig. 3). It appears that the thicker soft tissue envelope is better able to distribute stresses to the broader area beneath the calcaneus compared with the thinner soft tissue and small area beneath the metatarsal heads in the forefoot. People without diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy experience high forefoot stresses; however, they do not experience plantar skin breakdown. The baseline pathophysiological impairment that allows skin breakdown is peripheral neuropathy.1 People with intact sensation are able to sense high pressures and pain and to adjust their weightbearing activities accordingly to avoid continued trauma and injury. In addition to the loss of protective sensation, the DM⫹PN group experienced higher stresses compared with the control group (Tab. 2). Forefoot PPP and PMSS values were 35% greater in the DM⫹PN group than in the control group. Even more discriminating, however, were the differences between the pressure gradients and the D_PMSS values, which were 85% greater in the DM⫹PN group and 111% lower in the control group. Figure 3 illustrates part of the reason why forefoot stresses were higher in November 2008

Figure 3. (Top) Sagittal-view computed tomographic image along the first ray of a person with no history of diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, or foot impairments. (Bottom) Sagittalview computed tomographic image along the first ray of a person with diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and hammer-toe deformity (hyperextension of the metatarsophalangeal joint). Hammer-toe deformity is associated with high plantar pressures27,28 and skin breakdown under the metatarsal heads.30,31

the DM⫹PN group than in the control group. As illustrated in the figure, people with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy have a high incidence of hammer-toe deformity (hyperextension of the metatarsophalangeal joint) that is associated with high plantar pressures27–29 and skin breakdown.30,31 Hammer-toe deformity reduces the ability of the toes to share weight-bearing stresses during walking and increases stresses under the metatarsal head, where most ulcers are located. Although the precise reason for the hammertoe deformity is not known, weakness and atrophy in the intrinsic muscles of the foot from peripheral neuropathy are thought to contrib-

ute.32 For further discussion of the muscle and bone changes secondary to peripheral neuropathy, see the articles by Hilton et al33 and Sinacore et al34 in this issue. Other factors besides intrinsic muscle weakness must contribute to the hammer-toe deformity, however, because not all people with intrinsic muscle weakness develop hammer toe deformity.35 Soft tissue thickness is known to be inversely correlated with plantar pressures under the metatarsal heads.28,36 Although some people with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy may have reduced soft tissue thickness,26 these changes may be subtle and are not universally seen across all people in this group.32


Physical Therapy f

1381

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot Table 3. Comparison of Results of the Current Study and Previously Published Resultsa Zou et al, 200716 (F-ScanⴙFootwear) Variable and Location

Lott et al, 200819 (F-ScanⴙFootwear)

Current Study (EMEDⴙBarefoot)

DMⴙPN Group (Nⴝ20)


DMⴙPN Group (nⴝ16)

DMⴙPNⴙU Group (nⴝ22)


DMⴙPN Group (nⴝ12)

PPP FF (kPa)

371 (75)

328 (87)

359 (75)

414 (131)

739 (268)

988 (215)

PPP RF (kPa)

272 (86)

325 (68)

387 (105)

68 (37)

102 (30)

7 (6)

16 (12)

170 (59)

230 (52)

70 (29)

93 (21)

PPG FF (kPa/mm)

34 (13)

PPG RF (kPa/mm)

14 (6)

PMSS (FF) (kPa)

79 (18)

PMSS RF (kPa)

67 (20)

D_PMSS FF (mm)

7 (2)

D_PMSS RF (mm)

14 (4)

19 (10)

70 (18)

9.6 (1.1)

25 (11)

79 (17)

8.4 (1.8)

36 (16)

90 (30)

7.2 (2.1)

8.0 (4.3)

3.8 (2.0)

12.5 (3.3)

12.5 (2.3)

a Values are mean (SD). DM⫽diabetes mellitus, PN⫽peripheral neuropathy, U⫽ulcer, PPP⫽peak plantar pressure, PPG⫽peak pressure gradient, PMSS⫽peak maximum shear stress, D_PMSS⫽depth of peak maximum shear stress, FF⫽forefoot, RF⫽rear foot, EMED⫽EMED ST P-2 pressure platform.

All of the stress variables reported in this article were highly correlated (r⫽.73–.96), and it is not yet explicitly clear what additional value PPG, PMSS, or D_PMSS have over the traditionally used PPP to predict tissue injury. Because of the larger group differences and because the PPG is linked to subsurface shear stresses (Fig. 1) and intuitively linked to injury, we believe the PPG may be a more sensitive indicator of injury risk than the PPP. Additional prospective studies, similar to that conducted by Armstrong et al,15 need to be conducted to determine whether these stress variables are more sensitive and specific to predicting skin breakdown than PPP alone. The results reported in this article are consistent with results from previous recent studies (Tab. 3),16,19 despite using a different pressure testing method (EMED versus F-Scan Inshoe Pressure System,† which have different numbers and spatial resolution of sensors) and different footwear conditions (barefoot versus shod). Data consistently show that people with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy have higher † Tekscan Inc, 307 W First St, South Boston, MA 02127.

1382

f

Physical Therapy

PPP, PPG, and PMSS values that are closer to the surface of the skin compared with control subjects. However, all of these stress variables in the forefoot were at least double in the barefoot condition in our study compared with previous reports that included data collected only in a shod condition (Tab. 3). This difference provides support for the importance of footwear to mitigate stress factors that may lead to skin breakdown in this population. People with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are encouraged to wear shoes at all times, even during household ambulation, to protect their feet from unnoticed injury.37 See the related article in this issue by LeMaster et al,38 who conducted a randomized controlled clinical trial to determine whether people with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy can increase their walking tolerance without an increased incidence of skin breakdown. Several limitations in this study are considered to help understand generalizability of results. First, this was a cross-sectional study, and causation between stress variables and skin breakdown cannot be established. The PPG, PMSS, and D_PMSS values

derived from the surface-measured pressure distribution have only recently been described, and the results of this study should help to design prospective studies to better establish the link between these variables and skin breakdown. In addition, several assumptions were required to estimate PMSS and D_PMSS: the soft tissue was assumed to be homogenous, isotropic, linearly elastic, and bounded by an infinite space. The error and validity of the PMSS and D_PMSS values are difficult, if not impossible, to measure directly using existing technology. Internal soft tissue stresses cannot be measured directly without affecting the results. Therefore, we compared PMSS and D_PMSS estimates from 4 subjects using the methods described in this study and our previous work16,19 with estimates derived using a validated 2-dimensional finite element analysis.39 Differences between the estimates derived using the 2 techniques were 4% to 8%.19 In addition, these results of high stresses concentrated near the skin surface contributing to injury are consistent with our a priori hypotheses and with mechanical failure theory.18


November 2008

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot Another limitation of this study was that we did not include groups with only diabetes mellitus, only peripheral neuropathy, or diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy but no history of a neuropathic ulcer. Therefore, we do not know for certain the individual contributions from diabetes mellitus or peripheral neuropathy. We included only the group with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy and a history of a plantar ulcer, however, because our previous work did not find substantial differences between subjects with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy and subjects without disease.19 In addition, it was not the purpose of the current study to attribute changes in stress values to each of these specific pathologies. Finally, weight (X⫾SD) was greater (105⫾24 versus 92⫾12 kg) and walking speed (X⫾SD) was lower (57⫾18 versus 68⫾21 m/min) in the DM⫹PN group compared with the control group. We do not believe, however, that these differences had a substantial impact on the results because the differences were not statistically significant (P⬎.05) and, although the greater weight may have driven the stress values up in the DM⫹PN group, the slower walking speed would have tended to drive the stress values down compared with the control group.40 Despite the limitations noted above, there are several important implications for clinical practice from this work. We believe the most important implication of this work, and of other studies showing similar connections between high stresses and skin breakdown,1–3 is the need for appropriate footwear and orthotic devices to minimize excessively high stresses for people who are at risk for skin breakdown. The American Diabetes Association currently recommends that people with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy and “with eviNovember 2008

dence of increased plantar pressure (eg, erythema, warmth, callus, measured pressure) should use footwear that cushions and redistributes the pressure.”37 As shown by the results in Table 3, therapeutic shoes alone can dramatically reduce plantar pressures compared with walking barefoot. Athletic shoes or good walking shoes provide comparable stress reductions41 and often are more cosmetically acceptable to patients than traditional therapeutic shoes. Several studies have shown that viscoelastic insoles41 or total-contact inserts42– 44 provide additional pressure reduction compared with footwear alone. Metatarsal pads can reduce pressures even beyond a total-contact insert, but pad size, material properties, and placement make accurate management with metatarsal pads challenging.42 Finite element analysis is a promising technology that is being used to help design orthotic devices to evenly distribute plantar pressures.39,45,46 Clearly, the integumentary system (ie, the skin) provides an outstanding soft tissue envelope around the foot to help distribute excessive plantar stresses. In the presence of impairments such as insensitivity, foot deformity, or reduced soft tissue thickness, extrinsic devices such as shoes and orthotic devices can be used to compensate for these impairments and help distribute excessive plantar stresses. Additional research is needed to develop and test footwear and orthotic algorithms that will help prevent skin breakdown in this population at high risk for skin breakdown and subsequent infection and amputation.

Conclusion The main findings of this study were that PPP, PPG, and PMSS were all higher and that the D_PMSS was lower in the forefoot compared with the rear foot (where most ulcers are located) and in the DM⫹PN group

compared with the control group. In addition, the PPG was the stress variable most discriminating between locations and subject groups. The PPG, PMSS, and D_PMSS may have additional value over the PPP in predicting skin injury, but prospective studies using these variables to predict ulcer risk are needed to test this hypothesis. Dr Mueller provided concept/idea/research design and project management. Dr Mueller, Ms Tuttle, and Dr Sinacore provided writing. Ms Bohnert and Dr Sinacore provided data collection. Dr Mueller and Dr Zou provided data analysis. Dr Mueller and Dr Sinacore provided fund procurement. Dr Sinacore provided subjects and facilities/ equipment. Ms Bohnert provided clerical support. All authors provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission). This study was approved by the Human Research Protection Office of Washington University School of Medicine. The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (grants RO1 HD36895 and T32 HD007434 to Dr Mueller) and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (grant RO1 DK 59224 to Dr Sinacore) and a Foundation for Physical Therapy Promotion of Doctoral Studies I grant to Ms Tuttle. The authors thank Paul Commean for generating Figure 3 used in this study. A poster presentation of this work was given at the Combined Sections Meeting of the American Physical Association; February 6 –9, 2008; Nashville, Tenn. This article was submitted January 10, 2008, and was accepted March 28, 2008. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20080011

References 1 Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM. Pathways to diabetic limb amputation: basis for prevention. Diabetes Care. 1990;13: 513–521. 2 Boulton AJ, Hardisty CA, Betts RP, et al. Dynamic foot pressure and other studies as diagnostic and management aids in diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care. 1983; 6:26 –33.


Physical Therapy f

1383

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot 3 Veves A, Murray HJ, Young MJ, Boulton AJ. The risk of foot ulceration in diabetic patients with high foot pressure: a prospective study. Diabetologia. 1992;35:660 – 663. 4 Cade WT. Diabetes-related microvascular and macrovascular diseases in the physical therapy setting. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1322– 1335. 5 Deshpande AD, Harris-Hayes M, Schootman M. Epidemiology of diabetes and diabetes-related complications. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1254 –1264. 6 Mueller MJ, Maluf KS. Tissue adaptation to physical stress: a proposed “Physical Stress Theory” to guide physical therapist practice, education, and research. Phys Ther. 2002;82:383– 403. 7 Boulton AJ, Betts RP, Franks CI, et al. The natural history of foot pressure abnormalities in neuropathic diabetic subjects. Diabetes Res. 1987;5:73–77. 8 Duckworth T, Boulton AJ, Betts RP, et al. Plantar pressure measurements and the prevention of ulceration in the diabetic foot. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67: 79 – 85. 9 Cavanagh PR, Morag E, Boulton AJ, et al. The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. J Biomech. 1997; 30:243–250. 10 Soames RW. Foot pressure patterns during gait. J Biomed Eng. 1985;7:120 –126. 11 Shaw JE, Hsi WL, Ulbrecht JS, et al. The mechanism of plantar unloading in total contact casts: implications for design and clinical use. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18: 809 – 817. 12 Maluf KS, Mueller MJ. Comparison of physical activity and cumulative plantar tissue stress among subjects with and without diabetes mellitus and a history of recurrent plantar ulcers. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003;18:567–575. 13 Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Holtz-Neiderer K, et al. Variability in activity may precede diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1980 –1984. 14 Yavuz M, Erdemir A, Botek G, et al. Peak plantar pressure and shear locations: relevance to diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2643–2645. 15 Armstrong DG, Peters EJ, Athanasiou KA, Lavery LA. Is there a critical level of plantar foot pressure to identify patients at risk for neuropathic foot ulceration? J Foot Ankle Surg. 1998;37:303–307. 16 Zou D, Mueller MJ, Lott DJ. Effect of peak pressure and pressure gradient on subsurface shear stresses in the neuropathic foot. J Biomech. 2007;40:883– 890. 17 Mueller MJ, Zou DQ, Lott DJ. “Pressure gradient” as an indicator of plantar skin injury. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:2908 –2912. 18 Hills D, Nowell D, Sackfield A. Mechanics of Elastic Contacts. Oxford, United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd; 1993.

1384

f

Physical Therapy

19 Lott DJ, Zou D, Mueller MJ. Pressure gradient and subsurface shear stress on the neuropathic forefoot. Clin Biomech. 2008; 23:342–348. 20 Edmonds ME, Blundell MP, Morris ME, et al. Improved survival of the diabetic foot: the role of a specialized foot clinic. Q J Med. 1986;60:763–771. 21 Caselli A, Armstrong DG, Pham H, et al. The forefoot-to-rearfoot plantar pressure ratio is increased in severe diabetic neuropathy and can predict foot ulceration. Diabetes Care. 2002;26:1066 –1071. 22 Mueller MJ, Diamond JE, Delitto A, Sinacore DR. Insensitivity, limited joint mobility, and plantar ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus. Phys Ther. 1989;69: 453– 459. 23 Kumar S, Fernando DJ, Veves A, et al. Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: a simple, effective and inexpensive screening device for identifying diabetic patients at risk of foot ulceration. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1991;13(1–2):63– 67. 24 McPoil TG, Cornwall MW, Dupuis L, Cornwell M. Variability of plantar pressure data: a comparison of the two-step and midgait methods. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1999; 89:495–501. 25 Bus SA, de Lange A. A comparison of the 1-step, 2-step, and 3-step protocols for obtaining barefoot plantar pressure data in the diabetic neuropathic foot. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20:892– 899. 26 Gooding GA, Stess RM, Graf PM, et al. Sonography of the sole of the foot: evidence for loss of foot pad thickness in diabetes and its relationship to ulceration of the foot. Invest Radiol. 1986;21:45– 48. 27 Ahroni JH, Boyko EJ, Forsberg RC. Clinical correlates of plantar pressure among diabetic veterans. Diabetes Care. 1999;22: 965–972. 28 Mueller MJ, Hastings MK, Commean PK, et al. Forefoot structural predictors of plantar pressures during walking in people with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy. J Biomech. 2003;36:1009 –1017. 29 Bus SA, Maas M, de Lange A, et al. Elevated plantar pressures in neuropathic diabetic patients with claw/hammer toe deformity. J Biomech. 2005;38:1918 –1925. 30 Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Vela SA, et al. Practical criteria for screening patients at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:157–162. 31 Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Steusel V, et al. A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer: the Seattle Diabetic Foot Study. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1036 –1042. 32 Robertson DD, Mueller MJ, Smith KE, et al. Structural changes in the forefoot of individuals with diabetes and a prior plantar ulcer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84: 1395–1404.

33 Hilton TN, Tuttle LJ, Bohnert KL, et al. Excessive adipose tissue infiltration in skeletal muscle in individuals with obesity, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral neuropathy: association with performance and function. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1336 –1344. 34 Sinacore DR, Hastings MK, Bohnert KL, et al. Inflammatory osteolysis in diabetic neuropathic (Charcot) arthropathies of the foot. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1399 –1407. 35 Bus SA, Yang QX, Wang JH, et al. Intrinsic muscle atrophy and toe deformity in the diabetic neuropathic foot: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1444 –1450. 36 Morag E, Cavanagh PR. Structural and functional predictors of regional peak pressures under the foot during walking. J Biomech. 1999;32:359 –370. 37 American Diabetes Association. Preventive foot care in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:S63–S64. 38 LeMaster JW, Mueller MJ, Reiber GE, et al. Effect of weight-bearing activity on foot ulcer incidence in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Feet First randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2008;88: 1385–1398. 39 Actis RL, Ventura LB, Smith KE, et al. Numerical simulation of the plantar pressure distribution in the diabetic foot during the push-off stance. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2006;44:653– 663. 40 Segal A, Rohr E, Orendurff M, et al. The effect of walking speed on peak plantar pressure. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:926 –933. 41 Lavery LA, Vela SA, Fleischli JG, et al. Reducing plantar pressure in the neuropathic foot: a comparison of footwear. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1706 –1710. 42 Mueller MJ, Lott DJ, Hastings MK, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of orthotic devices to unload metatarsal heads in people with diabetes and a history of plantar ulcers. Phys Ther. 2006;86:833– 842. 43 Ashry HR, Lavery LA, Murdoch DP, et al. Effectiveness of diabetic insoles to reduce foot pressures. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1997; 36:268 –271; discussion 328 –329. 44 Albert S, Rinoie C. Effect of custom orthotics on plantar pressure distribution in the pronated diabetic foot. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1994;33:598 – 604. 45 Erdemir A, Saucerman JJ, Lemmon D, et al. Local plantar pressure relief in therapeutic footwear: design guidelines from finite element models. J Biomech. 2005;38: 1798 – 806. 46 Thomas VJ, Patil KM, Radhakrishnan S. Three-dimensional stress analysis for the mechanics of plantar ulcers in diabetic neuropathy. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2004; 42:230 –235.


November 2008

Plantar Stresses on the Neuropathic Foot During Barefoot Walking Michael J Mueller, Dequan Zou, Kathryn L Bohnert, Lori J Tuttle and David R Sinacore PHYS THER. 2008; 88:1375-1384. Originally published online September 18, 2008 doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080011

References

This article cites 45 articles, 19 of which you can access for free at: http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/88/11/1375#BIBL

Cited by

This article has been cited by 6 HighWire-hosted articles: http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/88/11/1375#otherarticles http://ptjournal.apta.org/subscriptions/

Subscription Information

Permissions and Reprints http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml Information for Authors

http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 2, 2013