Mobile phone generated vibrations used to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: In the current United Kingdom population the incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy is increasing. The presence of diabetic neuropathy affects decision making and treatment options. This study seeks to evaluate if the vibrations generated from a mobile phone can be used to screen patients for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: This study comprised of 61 patients; a control group of 21 patients; a lower limb injury group of 19 patients; a diabetic peripheral neuropathy group of 21 patients. The control and injury group were recruited randomly from fracture clinics. The diabetic peripheral neuropathy group were randomly recruited from the diabetic foot clinic. The 61 patients were examined using a 10g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, a 128Hz tuning fork and a vibrating mobile phone. The points tested were, index finger, patella, lateral malleoli, medial malleoli, heel, first and fifth metatarsal heads. RESULTS: The most accurate location of all the clinical tests was the head of the 1st metatarsal at 0.86. The overall accuracy of the tuning fork was 0.77, the ten gram monofilament 0.79 and the mobile phone accuracy was 0.88. The control group felt 420 of 441 tests (95%). The injury group felt 349 of 399 tests (87%). The neuropathic group felt 216 of 441 tests (48%). There is a significant difference in the number of tests felt between the control and both the injury and neuropathic groups. p<0.0001 using N-1 Two Proportion Test. CONCLUSION: A mobile phone is an accurate screening tool for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The most accurate location to test for diabetic peripheral neuropathy is the head of the 1st metatarsal. Screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the index finger and patella were inaccurate. An injury to the lower limb affects the patient's vibration sensation, we would therefore recommend screening the contralateral limb to the injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This study represents level II evidence of a new diagnostic investigation.

Closed Tibial shaft fractures treated with the Ilizarov method: A ten year case series.

OBJECTIVES: To review the outcomes of patients treated with the Ilizarov method for an isolated, closed, simple diaphyseal, Tibial fracture at our institution over the last decade. METHODS: The Ilizarov frame database was used to identify 76 skeletally mature patients who sustained an isolated, closed, extra-articular, simple, diaphyseal Tibial fracture; the injury also known as a "nail-able Tibial fracture." RESULTS: The average age of the patient was 38 (17-70). All 76 patients progressed to union. The average time until union was 148 (55-398) days. The coronal and sagittal alignment was 3° (0-17°) and 4° (0-14°) respectively. No patient suffered from compartment syndrome. No patient developed septic arthritis. No patient had documented anterior knee pain or secondary knee specialist input post frame removal. On average, there were 9(4-29) follow up appointments and 10(5-26) radiographs post frame application. There is a 59% chance of a patient having a difficulty post frame application. The malunion rate was 5%. Persisting pinsite infection post frame removal occurred in 5 patients (6.5%). Drilling of the pinsite sequestrum resolved the infection in four of these patients, giving a deep infection rate of 1.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The Ilizarov method has a role to play in the treatment of simple closed Tibial shaft fractures in patients who need to kneel. Patient education is a priority however; the patient must be made aware of the difficulty rate associated with the Ilizarov method when compared to the complication profile of alternative treatments.