No Difference in Risk of Amputation or Frequency of Surgical Interventions Between Patients With Diabetic and Nondiabetic Charcot Arthropathy

The cause of Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CN) is diabetes in approximately 75% of patients. Most reports on the clinical course and complications of CN focus on diabetic CN, and reports on nondiabetic CN are scarce. No study, to our knowledge, has compared the clinical course of patients initiall...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2023-08, Vol.481 (8), p.1560-1568
Hauptverfasser: Waibel, Felix W. A., Weber, Sabrina, Selman, Farah, Götschi, Tobias, Berli, Martin C., Böni, Thomas, Schöni, Madlaina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The cause of Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CN) is diabetes in approximately 75% of patients. Most reports on the clinical course and complications of CN focus on diabetic CN, and reports on nondiabetic CN are scarce. No study, to our knowledge, has compared the clinical course of patients initially treated nonoperatively for diabetic and nondiabetic CN. Among patients with CN, are there differences between patients with diabetes and those without in terms of (1) the frequency of major amputation as ascertained by a competing risks survivorship estimator; (2) the frequency of surgery as ascertained by a competing risks survivorship estimator; (3) frequency of reactivation, as above; or (4) other complications (contralateral CN development or ulcers)? Between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018, we treated 199 patients for diabetic CN. Eleven percent (22 of 199) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years or had incomplete datasets and could not be analyzed, and another 9% (18 of 199) were excluded for other prespecified reasons, leaving 80% (159 of 199) for analysis in this retrospective study at a mean follow-up duration since diagnosis of 6 ± 4 years. During that period, we also treated 78 patients for nondiabetic Charcot arthropathy. Eighteen percent (14 of 78) were lost before the minimum study follow-up and another 5% (four of 78 patients) were excluded for other prespecified reasons, leaving 77% (60 of 78) of patients for analysis here at a mean of 5 ± 3 years. Patients with diabetic CN were younger (59 ± 11 years versus 68 ± 11 years; p < 0.01), more likely to smoke cigarettes (37% [59 of 159] versus 20% [12 of 60]; p = 0.02), and had longer follow-up (6 ± 4 years versus 5 ± 3 years; p = 0.02) than those with nondiabetic CN. Gender, BMI, overall renal failure, dialysis, and presence of peripheral arterial disease did not differ between the groups. Age difference and length of follow-up were not considered disqualifying problems because of the later onset of idiopathic neuropathy and longer available patient follow-up in patients with diabetes, because our program adheres to the follow-up recommendations suggested by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Treatment was the same in both groups and included serial total-contact casting and restricted weightbearing until CN had resolved. Then, patients subsequently transitioned to orthopaedic footwear. CN reactivation was defined as clinical signs of the recurrence of CN a
ISSN:0009-921X
1528-1132
1528-1132
DOI:10.1097/CORR.0000000000002546