OBJECTIVE: No study has reported global disability burden estimates for individual diabetes-related lower-extremity complications (DRLECs). The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study presents a robust opportunity to address this gap. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GBD 2016 data, including prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs), for the DRLECs of diabetic neuropathy, foot ulcer, and amputation with and without prosthesis were used. The GBD estimated prevalence using data from systematic reviews and DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool. YLDs were estimated as the product of prevalence estimates and disability weights for each DRLEC. We reported global and sex-, age-, region-, and country-specific estimates for each DRLEC for 1990 and 2016. RESULTS: In 2016, an estimated 131 million people (1.8% of the global population) had DRLECs. An estimated 16.8 million YLDs (2.1% global YLDs) were caused by DRLECs, including 12.9 million (95% uncertainty interval 8.30–18.8) from neuropathy only, 2.5 million (1.7–3.6) from foot ulcers, 1.1 million (0.7–1.4) from amputation without prosthesis, and 0.4 million (0.3–0.5) from amputation with prosthesis. Age-standardized YLD rates of all DRLECs increased by between 14.6% and 31.0% from 1990 estimates. Male-to-female YLD ratios ranged from 0.96 for neuropathy only to 1.93 for foot ulcers. The 50- to 69-year-old age-group accounted for 47.8% of all YLDs from DRLECs. CONCLUSIONS: These first-ever global estimates suggest that DRLECs are a large and growing contributor to the disability burden worldwide and disproportionately affect males and middle- to older-aged populations. These findings should facilitate policy makers worldwide to target strategies at populations disproportionately affected by DRLECs.

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetes‐related foot disease and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetes‐related foot disease. This document describes the 2023 update of these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research, to facilitate clear communication with people with diabetes‐related foot disease and between professionals around the world.

Aims: Offloading mechanical tissue stress is arguably the most important of multiple interventions needed to heal diabetes‐related foot ulcers. This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) evidence‐based guideline on offloading interventions to promote healing of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. It serves as an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline.Materials and Methods: We followed the GRADE approach by devising clinical questions and important outcomes in the PICO (Patient‐Intervention‐Control‐Outcome) format, undertaking a systematic review and meta‐analyses, developing summary of judgement tables and writing recommendations and rationales for each question. Each recommendation is based on the evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where evidence was not available, and a careful weighing of GRADE summary of judgement items including desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patient values, resources required, cost effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and acceptability.Results: For healing a neuropathic plantar forefoot or midfoot ulcer in a person with diabetes, use a non‐removable knee‐high offloading device as the first‐choice offloading intervention. If contraindications or patient intolerance to non‐removable offloading exist, consider using a removable knee‐high or ankle‐high offloading device as the second‐choice offloading intervention. If no offloading devices are available, consider using appropriately fitting footwear combined with felted foam as the third‐choice offloading intervention. If such a non‐surgical offloading treatment fails to heal a plantar forefoot ulcer, consider an Achilles tendon lengthening, metatarsal head resection, joint arthroplasty, or metatarsal osteotomy. For healing a neuropathic plantar or apex lesser digit ulcer secondary to flexibile toe deformity, use digital flexor tendon tenotomy. For healing rearfoot, non‐plantar or ulcers complicated with infection or ischaemia, further recommendations have been outlined. All recommendations have been summarised in an offloading clinical pathway to help facilitate the implementation of this guideline into clinical practice.Conclusion: These offloading guideline recommendations should help healthcare professionals provide the best care and outcomes for persons with diabetes‐related foot ulcers and reduce the person's risk of infection, hospitalisation and amputation.

Background: Offloading interventions are commonly used in clinical practice to heal foot ulcers. The aim of this updated systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of offloading interventions to heal diabetic foot ulcers.Methods: We updated our previous systematic review search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to also include original studies published between July 29, 2014 and August 13, 2018 relating to four offloading intervention categories in populations with diabetic foot ulcers: (a) offloading devices, (b) footwear, (c) other offloading techniques, and (d) surgical offloading techniques. Outcomes included ulcer healing, plantar pressure, ambulatory activity, adherence, adverse events, patient‐reported measures, and cost‐effectiveness. Included controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality and had key data extracted into evidence and risk of bias tables. Included non‐controlled studies were summarised on a narrative basis.Results: We identified 41 studies from our updated search for a total of 165 included studies. Six included studies were meta‐analyses, 26 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 13 other controlled studies, and 120 non‐controlled studies. Five meta‐analyses and 12 RCTs provided high‐quality evidence for non‐removable knee‐high offloading devices being more effective than removable offloading devices and therapeutic footwear for healing plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Total contact casts (TCCs) and non‐removable knee‐high walkers were shown to be equally effective. Moderate‐quality evidence exists for removable knee‐high and ankle‐high offloading devices being equally effective in healing, but knee‐high devices have a larger effect on reducing plantar pressure and ambulatory activity. Low‐quality evidence exists for the use of felted foam and surgical offloading to promote healing of plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Very limited evidence exists for the efficacy of any offloading intervention for healing plantar heel ulcers, non‐plantar ulcers, and neuropathic ulcers with infection or ischemia.Conclusion: Strong evidence supports the use of non‐removable knee‐high offloading devices (either TCC or non‐removable walker) as the first‐choice offloading intervention for healing plantar neuropathic forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Removable offloading devices, either knee‐high or ankle‐high, are preferred as second choice over other offloading interventions. The evidence bases to support any other offloading intervention is still weak and more high‐quality controlled studies are needed in these areas.

There is a paucity of research on patients presenting with uninfected diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) that go on to develop infection. We aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors for developing infection in a large regional cohort of patients presenting with uninfected DFUs. We performed a secondary analysis of data collected from a validated prospective state-wide clinical diabetic foot database in Queensland (Australia). Patients presenting for their first visit with an uninfected DFU to a Diabetic Foot Service in one of thirteen Queensland regions between January 2012 and December 2013 were included. Socio-demographic, medical history, foot disease history, DFU characteristics and treatment variables were captured at the first visit. Patients were followed until their DFU healed, or if their DFU did not heal for 12-months, to determine if they developed a foot infection in that period. Overall, 853 patients were included; mean(standard deviation) age 62.9(12.8) years, 68.0% male, 90.9% type 2 diabetes, 13.6% indigenous Australians. Foot infection developed in 342 patients for an overall incidence of 40.1%; 32.4% incidence in DFUs healed <3 months, 55.9% in DFUs healed between 3–12 months (p<0.05). Independent risk factors (Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval)) for developing infection were: DFUs healed between 3–12 months (2.3 (1.6–3.3)), deep DFUs (2.2 (1.2–3.9)), peripheral neuropathy (1.8 (1.1–2.9)), previous DFU history (1.7 (1.2–2.4)), foot deformity (1.4 (1.0–2.0)), female gender (1.5 (1.1–2.1)) and years of age (0.98 (0.97–0.99)) (all p<0.05). A considerable proportion of patients presenting with an uninfected DFU will develop an infection prior to healing. To prevent infection clinicians treating patients with uninfected DFUs should be particularly vigilant with those presenting with deep DFUs, previous DFU history, peripheral neuropathy, foot deformity, younger age, female gender and DFUs that have not healed by 3 months after presentation.