4.6 Article

Cold immersion recovery responses in the diabetic foot with neuropathy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 562-569

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00454.x

Keywords

Cold immersion; Diabetic foot; Liquid crystal thermography; Recovery rate; Thermometry; Ulcer

Funding

  1. Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council [GR/S0732201]
  2. European Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this article was to investigate the effectiveness of testing cold immersion recovery responses in the diabetic foot with neuropathy using a contact thermography system based on thermochromic liquid crystals. A total of 81 subjects with no history of diabetic foot ulceration were assigned to neuropathy, non neuropathy and healthy groups. Each group received prior verbal and written description of the test objectives and subsequently underwent a comprehensive foot care examination. The room temperature and humidity were consistently maintained at 24 degrees C and less than 50%, respectively, with air conditioning. The right foot for each subject was located on the measurement platform after cold immersion in water at 18-20 degrees C. Whole-field thermal images of the plantar foot were recorded for 10 minutes. Patients with diabetes with neuropathy show the highest 'delta temperature', that is difference between the temperature after 10-minute recovery period and baseline temperature measured independently at all the three sites tested, that is first metatarsal head (MTH), second MTH and heel. This clinical study showed for the first time the evidence of poor recovery times for the diabetic foot with neuropathy when assessing the foot under load. A temperature deficit (because of poor recovery to baseline temperature) suggests degeneration of thermoreceptors, leading to diminished hypothalamus-mediated activity in the diabetic neuropathic group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available