Diabetic Lisfranc fracture-dislocations and Charcot neuroarthropathy

Surgical treatment of midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A wide range of clinical presentations of Charcot neuroarthropathy of the foot with concomitant osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes has been described. Existing literature provides an equally diverse list of treatment options. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes specifically for the surgical management of midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted by three independent reviewers using the following databases and search engines: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Ovid, PubMed and Scopus. Search terms used were: Charcot neuroarthropathy, osteoarthropathy, neuro-osteoarthropathy, neurogenic arthropathy, osteomyelitis, midfoot, foot, ankle, diabetes mellitus, ulceration, wound, infection, surgical offloading, diabetic reconstruction, internal fixation, external fixation. Studies meeting the following criteria were included: English language studies, studies published from 1997-2017, patients with diabetes mellitus surgically treated for Charcot neuroarthropathy of the midfoot (specified location) with concomitant osteomyelitis, with or without internal and/or external fixation, follow-up period of six months or more postoperatively, documentation of healing rates, complications, and need for revisional surgery. Studies which were entirely literature reviews, descriptions of surgical-only technique and/or cadaveric studies, patients without diabetes, studies that did not specify location of osteomyelitis and Charcot neuroarthropathy, and treatment proximal to and including Chopart's/midtarsal joint specifically talonavicular, calcaneocuboid, subtalar, ankle were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 13 selected studies, with a total of 114 patients with diabetes of which 56 had surgical treatment for midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis, met the above inclusion criteria and were used for data extraction.

CONCLUSION

Surgical intervention for midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes demonstrated a relatively high success rate for a range of procedures including debridement with simple exostectomy, arthrodesis with or without internal or external fixation, and advanced soft tissue reconstruction. However, this systematic review emphasises the need for larger, better designed studies to investigate the efficacy and failure rates of surgical treatment in this group of patients.

Corneal confocal microscopy detects severe small fiber neuropathy in diabetic patients with Charcot neuroarthropathy

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study was to identify the extent of small fiber neuropathy in diabetic patients with Charcot neuroarthropathy (CN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 patients with CN were compared with 20 age- and diabetes duration-matched patients with type 2 diabetes and 20 age-matched control participants. All patients underwent corneal confocal microscopy with quantification of corneal nerve morphology and assessment for vibration perception threshold, and a subset of patients with CN underwent assessment of sudomotor function and neuropathic pain.

RESULTS

In patients with CN compared with type 2 diabetes patients and control participants, there was a significant reduction in corneal nerve fiber density (14.94 ± 8.23 vs 23.86 ± 7.71, P = 0.004 vs 34.84 ± 9.13, P < 0.001), corneal nerve branch density (18.61 ± 16.7 vs 41.62 ± 22.67, P = 0.032 vs 76.47 ± 38.44, P < 0.001) and corneal nerve fiber length (8.40 ± 4.83 vs 14.87 ± 4.76, P = 0.001 vs 21.24 ± 6.48, P < 0.001), electrochemical skin conductance on the feet (20.57 ± 13.99 vs 61.50 ± 22.26, P < 0.001 vs 76.23 ± 12.01, P < 0.001) and hands (30.86 ± 18.10 vs 61.13 ± 19.14, P = 0.001 vs 68.31 ± 11.96, P < 0.001), and a significant increase in the vibration perception threshold in the feet (38.46 ± 15.10 vs 14.15 ± 10.25, P < 0.001 vs 7.75 ± 4.01, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diabetes and CN have severe large and particularly small fiber neuropathy.

Medical Imaging in Differentiating the Diabetic Charcot Foot from Osteomyelitis

Diabetic Charcot neuroarthropathy (DCN) poses a great challenge to diagnose in the early stages and when plain radiographs do not depict any initial signs of osseous fragmentation or dislocation in a setting of a high clinical index of suspicion. Medical imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and advanced bone scintigraphy, has its own unique clinical indications when treating the DCN with or without concomitant osteomyelitis. This article reviews different clinical case scenarios for choosing the most accurate medical imaging in differentiating DCN from osteomyelitis.

[Corrective arthrodesis of midfoot Charcot neuroosteoarthropathy with internal fixation]

OBJECTIVE

The goal of treatment is a plantigrade, stable, ulcer-free foot which can be addressed with diabetes-adapted insoles and/or DNOAP shoes.

INDICATIONS

Charcot foot of the midfoot with/without infection-free ulcers.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Inacceptable anesthesiological risk in polymorbidity. Severe anesthesiological risks in multimorbid patients; symptomatic peripheral arterial occlusive disease not suitable for reconstruction; infections PEDIS/IWGDF grade 3 or 4, nonreconstructable osseous defects.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Corrective arthrodesis with segmental resection or bone grafting of the midfoot to achieve a plantigrade foot position. Plantar plate application or intramedullary (e.g., midfoot fusion bolt) and extramedullary (preferably: angular stable locking plates) implant combinations to create the highest possible degree of primary stability of the medial and/or lateral foot columns (superconstruct). In case of higher degrees of instability, the hindfoot should also be included into the arthrodesis.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Partial weight-bearing (20 kg) with forearm crutches for 3-5 months postoperatively in special orthosis or total contact cast. Therapeutic shoes with diabetes-adapted insoles with full weight-bearing.

RESULTS

Using any of these stabilization variants, a plantigrade, stable, and long-lasting ulcer-free foot may be obtained that is suitable for custom-made footwear. The outcome does not depend on definite osseous healing of the arthrodesis and allows for the patient to have a self-determined lifestyle. The consecutive rate of amputation is low.

COMPLICATIONS

High rate of surgical complications (e.g., infection, implant failure, non-union, loss of correction, reulceration), in particular, in cases of inadequate indication or insufficient primary stability.

Management in high-risk patients

Injuries to the foot and ankle are often missed or underestimated in patients with polytrauma and are a source of long-term limitations. Injures below the knee are among the highest causes for unemployment, longer sick leave, more pain, more follow-up appointments, and decreased overall outcome. As mortalities decrease for patients with polytrauma a greater emphasis on timely diagnosis and treatment of foot and ankle injuries is indicated. Geriatric patients represent nearly one-quarter of trauma admissions in the United States. This article discusses perioperative management and complications associated with foot and ankle injuries in polytrauma, and in diabetic and geriatric patients.