Abstract
A heel ulcer is considered to be a serious complication in patients with diabetes, and there is limited information regarding outcome. In most of the literature, a poor prognosis is described. The aim of this study was to investigate a large cohort of ulcers located in the heel in patients with diabetes.
Seven hundred and sixty‐eight patients [median age 73 (17–98)], presenting with a heel ulcer at a multidisciplinary diabetes foot clinic, fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were followed‐up until final outcome.
Fifty‐eight per cent of the patients healed primarily; 7% healed after major debridement; 9% healed after amputation and 25% died unhealed. Median healing time was 17 weeks. Ulcer progression was seen in 19% of patients. Thirty‐one percent of patients had severe peripheral vascular disease. A creatinine level below 91 µmol/l was related to a higher probability for healing without major debridement or amputation, whereas vascular surgery, nephropathy and oedema were related to a lower probability for healing without major debridement or amputation.
Two thirds of heel ulcers do heal in patients with diabetes despite patients being elderly and with extensive comorbidity. The extent of peripheral vascular disease, nephropathy, oedema and decreased renal function are important factors influencing outcome.
Keywords: Diabetes, Healing, Heel ulcer, Outcome
Introduction
A heel ulcer is considered to be a serious complication in patients with diabetes and is often described with a poor outcome 1. In the literature, there are few studies that specifically focus on ulcers located on the heel, and many of these report on small numbers or selected cases, and there is no clear consensus on management 2, 3. A common opinion is that a patient with diabetes and a heel ulcer almost invariably ends up with an amputation above the ankle. There are also a number of studies detailing different surgical procedures to enhance healing of a heel ulcer 4, 5, 6, 7. To our knowledge, there is only one other study, published in 2005 by Chipchase and colleagues 8, reporting on heel ulcers and outcome.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate a large cohort of consecutively presenting patients with diabetes and an ulcer located on the heel at a multidisciplinary foot care centre.
Patients and methods
Design
This is a large cohort study of consecutively presenting patients with diabetes and heel ulcers, followed‐up prospectively until final outcome (healing or death). All patients were followed‐up according to a preset protocol. Patient data were gathered prospectively as they visited the diabetic foot clinic. Analysis of collected data was performed in 2015 by the first author. Minimum follow‐up time was 2 years.
Patient population
All 4273 patients with diabetes who presented with a foot ulcer at the multidisciplinary diabetes foot clinic (tertiary centre) from 1 January 1983 to 31 December 2013 were considered for inclusion (Figure 1). Inclusion criteria for this study were diabetes and an ulcer located on the heel. If a patient presented with bilateral heel ulcers, the ulcer with the worst outcome was included. Patients with multiple ulcers were not included.
Figure 1.
Outcome of heel ulcers in patients with diabetes. n = number of patients.
During the observation period, 844 patients were originally classified as fulfilling the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Seven patients were excluded from the analysis after re‐evaluation of the data. Sixty‐six patients were lost to follow‐up, and three patients had ongoing treatment at last follow‐up in this study (30 June 2015).
Thus, a total of 768 patients (432 males, 336 females) with a median age of 73 (17–98) years remained for analysis in this study. The median duration of diabetes was 17 (0–72), years and 56% of the patients were male (Table 1).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics at inclusion and outcome. Values are n (%) or median (range)
| All patients | Primary healing | Healing after major debridement, no amputation | Healing after amputation | Deceased unhealed | Primary healing versus all others P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 768 | 447 (58) | 57 (7) | 72 (9) | 192 (25) | |
| Age | 73 (17–98) | 71 (19–96) | 65 (17–88) | 70 (49–89) | 79 (40–98) | <0·0001 |
| Male gender | 432 (56) | 244 (55) | 32 (56) | 47 (65) | 109 (57) | ns |
| Duration of diabetes (years)* | 17 (0–72) | 15 (0–70) | 12 (0–55) | 22 (1–72) | 20 (0–56) | ns |
| Diabetes treatment with insulin | 520 (68) | 301 (67) | 39 (68) | 51 (71) | 129 (67) | ns |
| Current smoker | 126 (16) | 75 (17) | 9 | 16 (22) | 26 (14) | ns |
| Hypertension | 515 (67) | 292 (65) | 32 (56) | 54 (75) | 137 (71) | ns |
| Retinopathy† (preprolif + prolif) | 272 (35) | 156 (35) | 28 (49) | 33 (46) | 55 (29) | 0·07 |
| Nephropathy | 268 (35) | 142 (32) | 17 (30) | 40 (56) | 69 (36) | 0·03 |
| End‐stage renal disease | 95 (12) | 49 (11) | 5 | 16 (22) | 25 (13) | ns |
| Creatinine level‡ (µmol/l) | 91 (29–1101) | 88 (29–978) | 80 (45–808) | 121 (37–1101) | 101 (30–632) | 0·03 |
| Ischaemic heart disease | 296 (39) | 159 (36) | 15 (26) | 33 (46) | 89 (46) | 0·05 |
| Congestive heart failure | 278 (36) | 142 (32) | 11 (19) | 29 (40) | 96 (50) | 0·003 |
| Non‐ischaemic heart disease | 223 (29) | 110 (25) | 16 (28) | 28 (39) | 69 (36) | 0·001 |
| Cerebrovascular lesion | 223 (29) | 111 (25) | 16 (28) | 24 (33) | 72 (38) | 0·002 |
| Haemoglobin level§ (g/l) | 123 (69–185) | 126 (70–169) | 129 (74–161) | 111 (69–163) | 120 (84–185) | <0·0001 |
| HbA1c at hospital admission¶ (%) | 7·5 (3·4–14·9) | 7·5 (4.6–14·2) | 8·4 (4·8–14·9) | 7·6 (4·1–12·1) | 6·9 (3·4–14·9) | ns |
| Living in own home | 571 (74) | 360 (81) | 43 (75) | 57 (79) | 111 (58) | <0·0001 |
| No home care | 397 (52) | 263 (59) | 35 (61) | 34 (47) | 65 (34) | <0·0001 |
| Previous amputation | 86 (11) | 39 (9) | 4 | 14 (19) | 29 (15) | 0·01 |
| Vascular surgery prior to inclusion | 46 (6) | 20 (5) | 5 | 8 | 13 (7) | 0·04 |
| Vascular surgery after inclusion‖ | 176 (23) | 82 (18) | 14 (25) | 39 (54) | 41 (21) | 0·0004 |
Duration of diabetes not known for 133 patients.
No retinal examination performed in 209 patients.
No creatinine level recorded for 180 patients.
No haemoglobin level recorded for 206 patients.
No HbA1c recorded for 207 patients.
No record of vascular surgery for 30 patients.
Hypertension was present in 67% of patients, and 39% of patients had ischaemic heart disease. Thirty‐five percent of patients had evidence of nephropathy, and 12% had end‐stage renal disease. Seventy‐four percent of patients lived in their own home, and 52% did not have any home assistance (Table 1). In 87% of patients, good concordance was noted.
Eleven percent of patients had had an amputation prior to entering the study, either a minor amputation on the same side or an amputation at any level on the contralateral side. Vascular surgery had been performed in 6% of patients prior to entering the study and was performed in 23% of patients during the course of the study. Of the 46 patients who had vascular surgery prior to enrolment, 15 (33%) patients had endovascular surgery, and 31 (67%) patients had open vascular reconstruction. Of the 176 patients who had vascular surgery during the course of the study, 48 (27%) patients had endovascular surgery, and 128 (73%) had open vascular reconstruction. At enrolment, 38% of patients had a history of a previously healed ulcer on either foot (Table 1).
Setting/organisation
The diabetic foot centre is located at a university hospital with a primary care catchment area of approximately 700 000 people at the end of the study. This centre is the single provider of specialised diabetic foot care in this area, from the year 2000, operating in two geographic locations, and is also a tertiary referral centre for the surrounding regions. The management protocol at the diabetic foot clinic is based on a multidisciplinary approach and has been previously described 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Briefly, it consists of inpatient and outpatient visits, regular podiatric care, individually adjusted footwear, regular ulcer dressings and access to specialists in vascular surgery, orthopaedics and infectious diseases when needed. When presenting with a foot ulcer, the patients were seen by the multidisciplinary foot care team, consisting of a diabetologist, an orthopaedic surgeon, a diabetes specialist nurse, an orthotist and a chiropodist. The team works in close cooperation with vascular surgeons and also has access to specialists in infectious diseases. The patients were treated by the team both as in‐ and outpatients and followed‐up by the team until final outcome (healing with or without amputation or deceased unhealed).
Clinical examination
At inclusion, all patients were questioned for medical history and examined, and the findings were recorded according to a preset protocol 12, 14. The lesions were classified according to the Wagner classification 15.
Measurements
Systolic toe and ankle blood pressure measurements were obtained using strain gauge and Doppler techniques as previously described 14. In cases where the patient was found to have decreased peripheral blood circulation, the patient was referred to a vascular surgeon for evaluation and, if possible, treatment with vascular surgery.
In 274 patients, ankle or toe pressure measurements were not obtained (because of previous amputation, calcified arteries or the patients' medical condition) or were considered unnecessary (because of palpable foot pulses).
Definitions
General characteristics
Duration of diabetes was calculated from the year of diagnosis until presentation with an ulcer at the foot clinic. Nephropathy was defined as persistent urine albumin > 300 mg/l 13. End‐stage renal disease (ESRD) was defined as uremia (creatinine level > 300 µmol/l), treatment in dialysis or a previous renal transplantation. Patients were defined as smokers when currently smoking or having stopped smoking for less than one year. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure over 140/90 mm Hg or treatment with antihypertensive agents. Retinopathy was classified as pre‐proliferative or proliferative based on retinal photographs by an ophthalmologist.
Cardiovascular comorbidity was divided into ischaemic heart disease (angina pectoris or myocardial infarction), non‐ischaemic heart disease (e.g. atrial fibrillation or valvular heart disease), or congestive heart failure 13. Cerebrovascular comorbidity was defined as previously described 13.
Assisted living was defined as any institutional living outside the patients' own home. Home care was defined as any assistance the patient had in his or her own home. Good concordance was defined as the ability to keep 50% or more of appointments with the multidisciplinary foot care team 13.
Extremity‐related characteristics
Severe peripheral vascular disease (SPVD) was defined as toe pressure less than 45 mmHg or ankle pressure less than 80 mmHg. For classification of peripheral vascular disease, the lowest distal blood pressure measurement was used. Pain was defined as rest pain localised to the foot. Oedema was defined as swelling of the foot enough to leave a finger imprint. Previous amputation and previous vascular surgery were defined as having been performed on either side before the patient entered the study.
Ulcer‐related characteristics
An ulcer was defined as a full thickness lesion through all the layers of the skin and classified according to Wagner 15. Superficial skin infection or cellulitis was not reported separately in the protocol (Wagner classification). An increase in Wagner grade from time of inclusion during time of treatment was recorded.
Ulcer duration was defined as number of weeks from onset of ulcer until arrival at the foot clinic. When time of onset could not be established, ulcer duration was categorised as unknown. Healing was defined as macroscopically complete epithelialisation and had to be reconfirmed after 6 months 10. If the ulcer reoccurred during the first 6 months, it was per definition not healed. Healing time was defined as number of weeks from arrival at the foot clinic until healing. After healing is reconfirmed after 6 months, patients are not followed‐up at the diabetic foot centre. Patients are recommended regular visits to a podiatrist and regular check‐ups at their primary care facility. If a new ulcer develops, patients are referred to the outpatient clinic and treated accordingly.
Minor debridement was defined as such the removal of callosities and debris that could be performed in the outpatient clinic without anaesthesia. Major debridement was defined as surgical revision or resection of soft tissues and/or bone, requiring anaesthesia and/or the use of an operation theatre 1.
Primary healing was defined as healing with intact skin without amputation and was subdivided into healing with or without major debridement.
Off‐loading
Upon arrival at the foot clinic with an ulcer located on the heel, the patients were immediately prescribed total pressure relief, both prescribed for walking, sitting and bedridden patients. Type of off‐loading was adapted to the patients' individual need and medical condition and was modified as required during the course of treatment.
Non‐surgical treatment
Treatment was carried out in close cooperation with primary care and home care. Individually adjusted off‐loading equipment (total contact cast, individually fitted shoes and/or insoles, orthosis) was offered to all patients.
Infection, metabolic control, peripheral arterial disease, oedema and comorbidity were managed in close cooperation with the specialists concerned 1, 9, 10, 11, 12. The strategy for management in cases of diabetic foot infections is suggested by a programme written in close cooperation with the department of infectious diseases, including diagnosis, investigations, cultures, microbiology and antimicrobial treatment.
When clinical signs of infection were present, oral antibiotics were given. Patients with deep abscess or osteomyelitis were hospitalised, and intravenous antibiotics were administered 16. Analgesia was used related to cause and intensity of pain.
Hospitalisation was used in case of the need for acute surgical treatment, parenteral antibiotics or when there was a deterioration of infection despite non‐operative treatment. The treatment chosen in each case was based on written guidelines at our institution (in cooperation with the department of infectious diseases), including antibiotic treatment, and changed when decided necessary by the responsible physician 16.
Topical treatment was prescribed by the multidisciplinary foot care team according to the individual wound bed condition. Dressing changes were supervised by a registered nurse in primary health care and/or home nursing services. Telephone support during daytime was provided by the team.
Surgical treatment
Minor debridement was performed as required at the outpatient clinic by a chiropodist. Major debridement and amputation were performed at the discretion of, and by, an orthopaedic surgeon. A non‐healing ulcer was not per se considered an indication for amputation 11. Dry and inactive necrosis with or without an underlying osteomyelitis were left for mummification as long as pain and infection would allow. Acute incision and drainage was performed in case of a deep abscess 16. Vascular surgery (including endovascular and open methods) was performed at the discretion of, and by, a vascular surgeon. Major amputation was defined as an amputation proximal to the ankle joint.
Statistics
Values are given as numbers or median (range) unless otherwise stated. Statistical analysis (chi2) was performed for those who healed without major debridement or amputation versus those who healed after major debridement or amputation or were unhealed at death.
A stepwise multiple logistic regression model with backward selection, including variables with P < 0·1, was performed to determine factors related to outcome. All statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).
Ethical approval
The Regional Ethical Review Board approved the study.
Results
The median ulcer duration at inclusion was 4 (0·5–166) weeks (Table 2). There was no correlation between ulcer duration and outcome (data not shown).
Table 2.
Local characteristics at inclusion and outcome. Values are n (%) or median (range).
| All patients | Primary healing | Healing after major debridement, no amputation | Healing after amputation | Deceased unhealed | Primary healing versus all others P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 768 | 447 (58) | 57 (7) | 72 (9) | 192 (25) | ||
| Foot oedema | 284 (37) | 130 (29) | 21 (37) | 43 (60) | 90 (47) | <0·0001 | |
| Ulcer duration at inclusion* (weeks) | 4 (0·5–166) | 4 (0·5–166) | 5 (0·5–41) | 4 (0·5–157) | 4 (0·5–53) | 0·04 | |
| Wagner grade at inclusion | 1 (superficial ulcer) | 653 (85) | 415 (64) | 38 (6) | 50 (8) | 150 (23) | |
| 2 (deep ulcer) | 82 (11) | 26 (32) | 11 (13) | 15 (18) | 30 (37) | ||
| 3 (abscess and/or osteomyelitis) | 18 (2) | 4 | 8 | 2 | 4 | ||
| 4 (gangrene of portion of foot) | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | ||
| 5 (gangrene of greater part of foot) | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | ||
| Precipitating factors | Intrinsic ulcer | 90 (12) | 62 (69) | 9 | 7 | 12 (13) | |
| Pressure ulcer | 331 (43) | 146 (44) | 18 (5) | 31 (9) | 136 (41) | ||
| Cracked skin | 96 (13) | 76 (79) | 5 | 4 | 11 (11) | ||
| Miscellaneous | 251 (33) | 163 (65) | 25 (10) | 30 (12) | 33 (13) | ||
| Severe peripheral vascular disease (toe pressure < 45 or ankle pressure < 80 mm Hg) | 237 (31) | 118 (26) | 11 (19) | 33 (46) | 75 (39) | 0.002 | |
| No severe peripheral vascular disease (toe pressure < 45 or ankle pressure < 80 mm Hg) | 257 (33) | 168 (38) | 35 (61) | 17 (24) | 37 (19) | ||
| No distal pressure measurement | 274 (36) | 161 (36) | 11 (19) | 22 (31) | 80 (42) | ||
| Toe pressure (mm Hg) | 53 (5–224) | 60 (10–224) | 70 (15–210) | 40 (10–140) | 39 (5–135) | <0·0001 | |
| Ankle pressure (mm Hg) | 95 (10–290) | 104 (23–290) | 128 (45–225) | 73 (10–214) | 65 (15–220) | 0·001 | |
| Local foot pain | 185 (24) | 86 (19) | 9 | 24 (33) | 66 (34) | <0·0001 |
Ulcer duration is not known for 111 patients.
Superficial ulcers (Wagner grade 1) were the most commonly presenting ulcers (85% of ulcers), and a pressure ulcer was the most common precipitating factor (43% of ulcers; Table 2).
In patients with a pressure ulcer as the precipitating factor, the primary healing rate was 44% (146/331). In patients with cracked skin, intrinsic ulcer or miscellaneous cause as the precipitating factor, the primary healing rate was 79% (76/96), 69% (62/90) and 65% (163/251), respectively. Patients with a pressure ulcer had a higher mortality rate (41%) than patients with other precipitating factors (P < 0·0001).
For the 33 patients (4% of all included patients) in our study who had an ulcer classified as Wagner grade 3 or higher upon arrival at the foot clinic, six healed without surgery or amputation; eight healed after major debridement; seven healed after major amputation; and 12 were unhealed at death.
SPVD was present in 31% of patients. Foot oedema was present in 284 patients (37%), and 185 patients (24%) had presence of pain. Progress of Wagner grade was seen in 19% of patients.
Outcome
Sixty‐six per cent of patients (504/768) achieved healing without (n = 447) or with (n = 57) major debridement; 9% (72/768) healed after an amputation and 25% (192/768) died unhealed (Figure 1). Of the 57 patients who healed after major debridement, four patients had a resection, and another four patients had a skin transplant. Primary healing in surviving patients was 78% (447/576). Patients included after the year 2000 had a lower healing rate with major debridement and a higher frequency of patients who died unhealed (Table 3).
Table 3.
Outcome according to period at inclusion. Values are n (%)
| Outcome | 1983–2000 | 2001–2013 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healing (without major debridement or amputation) | 120 (54) | 327 (60) | ns |
| Healing (with major debridement, no amputation) | 39 (18) | 18 (3) | 0·001 |
| Healing after amputation | 18 (8) | 54 (10) | ns |
| Deceased unhealed | 45 (20) | 147 (27) | 0·05 |
Median healing time from inclusion was 17 (1–416) weeks. Healing time for those who healed following major debridement (28 weeks) or amputation (24 weeks) was longer than for those who had neither major debridement nor amputation (14 weeks, P < 0·0001). No correlation could be found between ulcer duration and healing time (data not shown).
Factors related to outcome
A number of patient and local characteristics were found to be related to outcome when bivariate analysis (chi2) was performed (Tables 1 and 2). When a stepwise multiple regression analysis with backward selection was performed, vascular surgery (P < 0·0001), nephropathy (P = 0·007) and oedema (P = 0·007) were factors related to a lower probability for healing without major debridement or amputation, and a creatinine level below 91 µmol/l (P = 0·03) was found to be related to a higher probability for healing without major debridement or amputation (Table 4).
Table 4.
Stepwise multiple regression analysis with backward selection of factors related to outcome between patients who healed without surgical intervention and patients who healed after major debridement or amputation
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|
| No vascular surgery | 3·8 (1·9–7·2) | <0·0001 |
| No nephropathy | 2·5 (1·3–4·9) | 0·007 |
| No oedema | 2·4 (1·3–4·4) | 0·007 |
| Creatinine < 91 µmol/l | 2·1 (1·1–4·2) | 0·03 |
Discussion
This is, to our knowledge, the largest study to date on a cohort of patients with diabetes and an ulcer located on the heel and followed‐up until final outcome. An ulcer located on the heel in patients with diabetes is a serious complication. In a larger cohort of foot ulcers, regardless of ulcer location, heel ulcers made up 10% of all foot ulcers 17. In our study, ulcers located on the heel in patients with diabetes make up 20% of foot ulcers. Most studies regarding ulcers located on the heel in patients with diabetes have small numbers or a selected category of patients 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19.
In this study of 768 consecutively presenting diabetes patients with a heel ulcer, 66% healed without an amputation; 9% healed after an amputation, and 25% died unhealed. In surviving patients, 78% healed without an amputation. Reported healing rates of heel ulcers in patients with diabetes vary between 51% and 95%, including between 12 and 100 patients 5, 6, 8, 19. In agreement with Chipchase et al. 8, our results contradict the prevailing belief that most heel ulcers will require an amputation above the ankle joint. Such a belief might well act as a self‐fulfilling prophecy and thereby maintain itself. A team approach to this group of patients, early referral to a centre with expertise in caring for diabetic foot ulcers and adequate pressure relief are key elements in our treatment strategy and might have played a role in the favourable outcome. The price to pay is often a long healing time.
In a previously published work on plantar forefoot ulcers in patients with diabetes 20, the overall healing rate without amputation was 79%. We consider a healing rate without amputation of 66% in patients with heel ulcer a good outcome, especially as these patients are older and often have more extensive comorbidity than those with plantar forefoot ulcers.
In this study, the ulcer duration was relatively short, with a median of 4 weeks at inclusion. Eighty‐five percent of heel ulcers were superficial upon arrival at the foot clinic. In most of the published data on ulcers located on the heel, the ulcers are deeper at inclusion 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 21. This indicates that our patients are referred to the multidisciplinary centre at an early stage in ulcer management. This early referral to a multidisciplinary centre, before the ulcer has progressed to exposed bone, and total off‐loading may be important regarding outcome.
In the present study, 25% of the patients died unhealed. This is higher in comparison to most other studies where mortality ranges between 5% and 21% 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 21. The patients in our study had a higher age and extensive comorbidity. There was also no set time limit to follow‐up, but all patients were followed‐up to final outcome. The mortality rate in patients with a pressure heel ulcer (43%, 331/768 patients) was considerably higher than in patients with other precipitating factors. This could be because of these patients having more comorbidities. The findings in our study indicate that ulcers located on the heel in patients with diabetes overall do not have a poor outcome. However, pressure ulcers may be considered a separate entity with a potentially poorer prognosis.
For 111 patients, ulcer duration could not be established. Among these patients, 52% (58/111) healed without major debridement;6% (7/111) healed after major debridement; 13% (14/111) healed after major amputation and 29% (32/111) died unhealed. Two previous studies have indicated a relationship between ulcer duration and outcome 22, 23. In this study, we could not find any correlation between duration of ulcer and outcome or healing time, consistent with the findings in another study 20.
The median healing time in our study was 17 weeks. A longer healing time was seen for patients who had an amputation or major debridement than for those who healed primarily. In studies where healing time is reported, the healing time was between 10–33 weeks 4, 5, 8, 19, 21, 24. Comparing healing times between studies is not easy as there are no clear definitions, and healing is not always defined. In this study, all patients are followed‐up to final outcome, and unlike in many other studies, there is no set time limit to follow‐up. Another important difference from most other studies is that time to heal is registered from the date of arrival at the foot clinic, not from the date of surgery.
In the literature, there are some studies that look at factors related to outcome. Treiman and colleagues 18 found that normal renal function, a palpable foot pulse, functioning posterior tibial artery and the number of functioning tibial arteries predicted the healing of heel ulcers. Bakheit and colleagues 19 found that short duration of diabetes, adequate circulation and a superficial wound were factors associated with healing, while Chipchase and colleagues 8 found that a larger ulcer and presence of peripheral arterial disease predicted a worse outcome. In a large mixed cohort study of diabetic foot ulcers comorbidity, severe PAD, infection and extent of tissue involvement were factors associated with outcome 1, 25.
Multivariate analysis in the present study showed that vascular surgery, nephropathy and oedema were the most important factors related to poor outcome, whereas a creatinine level below 91 µmol/l was the only factor related to a higher probability for healing without major debridement or amputation.
This is a study of a large, well defined patient material in which all patients are followed according to a standardised protocol. All patients are followed‐up to final outcome, both as inpatients and outpatients, by the multidisciplinary foot care team. There are, however, some potential weaknesses to consider in interpreting the data.
In this study, we included patients with an ulcer located on the heel. Patients classified as having multiple ulcers were not included. Among the patients admitted to our centre, 671 were classified as having multiple ulcers. In this group of patients, there could be a number of heel ulcers as well. Discerning which of these patients had a heel ulcer as well is not possible.
Analysis of patients with multiple ulcers admitted to our centre showed that these patients had a higher mortality rate (33%) and a lower primary healing rate (21%) than patients with ulcers located on the heel. One possible reason for this is that patients with multiple ulcers have more severe disease and comorbidity 12.
This cohort spans over three decades, and undoubtedly, there have been changes and evolvement in treatment over the years. When analysing the data according to time period, patients included after the year 2000 had a lower healing rate after major debridement and a higher frequency of patients who died unhealed. The reason for this is not known. When following‐up patients over a longer period of time, it is inevitable that there will be changes in daily practice, which has to be taken into consideration when evaluating cohorts over time.
Ulcers in this study were classified according to Wagner. This classification has a weakness; it does not describe ulcer area or extent of infection. Unfortunately, it is not possible to reclassify the ulcers to more recent systems retrospectively as the older records lack information on, for example, ulcer size and classification of infection.
Major conclusions
The most important finding in our study is that ulcers located on the heel in patients with diabetes have a high probability for healing. Evidence of vascular disease of such severity as to have required vascular surgery, oedema and decreased renal function were factors negatively influencing the outcome.
References
- 1.International Consensus on the Diabetic Foot and Guidance on the Management and Prevention of the Diabetic Foot. International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot 2015. The Hague, URL www.iwgdf.org. [accessed on 1 September 2015].
- 2. Cevera J, Bolton L, Kerstein M. Options for diabetic patients with chronic heel ulcers. J Diabetes Complications 1997;11:358–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Younes N, Albsoul A, Awad H. Diabetic heel ulcers: a major risk factor for lower extremity amputation. Ostomy Wound Manage 2004;50:50–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Van Riet A, Harake R, Stuyck J. Partial calcanectomy: a procedure to cherish or reject? Foot Ankle Surg 2012;18:25–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Goudie E, Gendics C, Lantis J. Multimodal therapy as an algoritm to limb salvage in diabetic patients with large heel ulcers. Int Wound J 2012;9:132–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Baravarian B, Menendez M, Weinheimer D, Lowery C, Kosanovich R, Vidt L. Subtotal calcanectomy for the treatment of large heel ulceration and calcaneal osteomyelitis in the diabetic patient. J Foot Ankle Surg 1999;38:194–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Fraccalvieri M, Pristera G, Zingarelli E, Ruka E, Bruschi S. Treatment of chronic heel osteomyelitis in vasculopathic patients. Can the combined use of Integra®, skin graft and negative pressure wound therapy be considered a valid therapeutic approach after partial tangential calcanectomy? Int Wound J 2012;9:214–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Chipchase A, Treece K, Pound N, Game F, Jeffcoate W. Heel ulcers don't heal in diabetes. Or do they? Diabet Med 2005;22:1258–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Apelqvist J, Ragnarson‐Tennvall G, Persson U, Larsson J. Diabetic foot ulcers in a multidisciplinary setting. An economic analysis of primary healing and healing with amputation. J Intern Med 1994;235:463–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Larsson J, Agardh C‐D, Apelqvist J, Stenström A. Local signs and symptoms in relation to final amputation level in diabetic patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1994;65:387–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Larsson J, Agardh C‐D, Apelqvist J, Stenström A. Long term prognosis after healed amputation in patients with diabetes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;350:149–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Gershater MA, Löndahl M, Nyberg P, Larsson J, Thörne J, Eneroth M, Apelqvist J. Complexity of factors related to outcome of neuropathic and neuroischaemic/ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers: a cohort study. Diabetologia 2009;52:398–407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Apelqvist J, Agardh C‐D. The association between clinical risk factors and outcome of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1992;18:43–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Apelqvist J, Castenfors J, Larsson J, Stenström A, Agardh C. Prognostic value of systolic ankle and toe pressure levels in outcome of diabetic foot ulcer. Diabetes Care 1989;12:373–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Wagner FW Jr. The dysvascular foot: a system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle 1981;2:64–122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Eneroth M, Larsson J, Apelqvist J. Deep foot infections in patients with diabetes and foot ulcer: an entity with different characteristics, treatments and prognosis. J Diabetes Complications 1999;13:254–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Prompers L, Huijberts M, Apelqvist J, Jude E, Piaggesi A, Bakker K, et al. High prevalence of ischemia, infection and serious comorbidity in patient with diabetic foot disease in Europe. Baseline results from the Eurodiale study. Diabetologia 2007;50:18–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Treiman G, Oderich G, Ashrafi A, Schneider P. Management of ischemic heel ulceration and gangrene: an evaluation of factors associated with successful healing. J Vasc Surg 2000;31:1110–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Bakheit H, Mohamed M, Mahadi S, Widatalla A, Shawer M, Khamis A, Ahmed M. Diabetic heel ulcer in the Sudan: determinants and outcome. J Foot Ankle Surg 2012;51:152–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Örneholm H, Apelqvist J, Larsson J, Eneroth M. High probability of healing without amputation of plantar forefoot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Wound Repair Regen 2015;23:922–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Pickwell K, Siersma V, Kars M, Holstein P, Schaper N. Diabetic foot disease: impact of ulcer location on ulcer healing. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2013;29:377–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Margolis DJ, Kantor J, Santanna J, Strom BL, Berlin JA. Risk factors for delayed healing of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a pooled analysis. Arch Dermatol 2000;136:1531–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Beckert S, Witte M, Wicke C, Königsrainer A, Coerper S. A new wound‐based severity score for diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective analysis of 1,000 patients. Diabetes Care 2006;29:988–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Oyibo SO, Jude EB, Tarawneh I, Nguyen HC, Armstrong DG, Harkless LB, Boulton AJ. The effects of ulcer size and site, patient's age, sex and type and duration of diabetes on the outcome of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med 2001;18:133–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Prompers L, Schaper N, Apelqvist J, Edmonds M, Jude E, Mauricio D, et al. Prediction of outcome in individuals with diabetic foot ulcer: focus on the differences between individuals with and without peripheral arterial disease. The EURODIALE Study. Diabetologia 2008;51:747–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]