ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot has a great impact on the life of patients. Its treatment involves a multi-disciplinary and multi-direction approach, which requires not only soft tissue repair, but also bone reconstruction and functional repair. CASE PRESENTATION: A 51-year-old Chinese man with a three-year history of diabetes was diagnosed with ulcers in his left foot. We performed a successful procedure, and the different strategies we adopted helped to avoid serious complications during treatment. The patient was treated with debridement, bone cement, iliac crest graft, and anterolateral femoral skin flap, and recovered well. CONCLUSION: There is a dearth of reports pertaining to treatment of diabetic foot in patients with midfoot bone and soft tissue loss. In this report, we present an effective method that we used to reconstruct the loss of midfoot in a patient with diabetic foot, illustrating a successful therapeutic strategy for saving limbs in this complex medical condition.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetic Foot , Plastic Surgery Procedures , Soft Tissue Injuries , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Diabetic Foot/surgery , Wound Healing , Ilium/transplantation , Surgical Flaps/surgeryABSTRACT
Shule River Basin is a typical arid inland river basin and ecoenvironment-fragile region. Comprehensive evaluation of ecosystem quality in the Shule River basin is of great significance. The ecosystem productivity index (EPI), the ecosystem stability index (ESI) and the ecosystem bea-ring capacity index (EBCI) were proposed to build a remote sensing comprehensive evaluation mo-del to evaluate the ecosystem quality of Shule River basin during 2001-2010. The results showed that the mean ecosystem quality value in the Shule River basin was 43.21, which was at a relatively low level. The values of EPI, ESI, EBCI were 47.16, 58.09 and 28.52, respectively, indicating that ecosystem carrying capacity in the Shule River basin was poor in the period from 2001 to 2010. However, EPI and EBCI rose by 18.9ï¼ and 20.1ï¼ , respectively, but ESI decreased slightly by 9.4%. The ecosystem quality showed a trend of increasing first and then decreasing from 2001 to 2010. The average ecosystem quality values in 2001, 2005 and 2010 were 43.71, 44.80 and 41.13, respectively. The farmland ecosystem quality was better than that of the other ecosystem types, and the water area ecosystem quality was the lowest. Overall, the comprehensive evaluation value of the artificial ecosystem quality was 46.43, which was significantly higher than that of the natural ecosystems.
