[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.150.215. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure. Participant Flow Through the Trial
Image description not available.
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Trial Participants
Image description not available.
Table 2. Lesions and Ulcers Among Trial Participants*
Image description not available.
Table 3. Pivotal Events and Foot Insensitivity for 84 Ulcer Episodes in Trial Participants
Image description not available.
1.
Reiber G. Epidemiology and health care costs for diabetic foot problems. In: Veves A, Giurini J, LoGerfo F, eds. Diabetic Foot: Medical and Surgical Treatment. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2002:35-58.
2.
Crausaz FM, Clavel S, Liniger C, Albeanu A, Assal JP. Additional factors associated with plantar ulcers in diabetic neuropathy.  Diabet Med.1988;5:771-775.
3.
Edmonds ME, Blundell MP, Morris ME, Thomas EM, Cotton LT, Watkins PJ. Improved survival of the diabetic foot: the role of a specialized foot clinic.  QJM.1986;60:763-771.
4.
Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM. Pathways to diabetic limb amputation: basis for prevention.  Diabetes Care.1990;13:513-521.
5.
Uccioli L, Faglia E, Monticone G.  et al.  Manufactured shoes in the prevention of diabetic foot ulcers.  Diabetes Care.1995;18:1376-1378.
6.
Wooldridge J, Bergeron J, Thornton C. Preventing diabetic foot disease: lessons from the Medicare therapeutic shoe demonstration.  Am J Public Health.1996;86:935-938.
7.
Litzelman DK, Marriott RJ, Vinicor F. The role of footwear in the prevention of foot lesions in patients with NIDDM.  Diabetes Care.1997;20:156-162.
8.
Borchers R, Boone D, Joseph A, Smith D, Reiber G. Numerical comparisons of 3-D shapes: application to the insensate foot.  J Prosthet Orthot.1995;7:29-34.
9.
Reiber GE, Smith DG, Boone DA.  et al.  Design and pilot testing of the DVA/Seattle footwear system for diabetic patients with foot insensitivity.  J Rehabil Res Dev.1997;34:1-8.
10.
Philips J. The Functional Foot OrthosisNew York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1990.
11.
Janisse D. Prescription insoles and footwear.  Clin Podiatr Med Surg.1995;12:41-61.
12.
Staats T, Kreichbaum M. Computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing of foot orthoses.  J Prosthet Orthot.1989;1:182-186.
13.
Brand P. The diabetic foot. In: Ellenberg M, Rifkin H, eds. Diabetes Mellitus Theory and Practice. Vol 2. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Medical Examination Publishing Co Inc; 1983:829-850.
14.
Boulton A, Franks C, Betts R, Duckworth T, Ward J. Reduction of abnormal foot pressures in diabetic neuropathy using a new polymer insole material.  Diabetes Care.1984;7:42-46.
15.
Coleman W. Footwear in a management program for injury prevention. In: Levin M, O'Neal L, eds. The Diabetic Foot. 5th ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby–Year Book; 1993:531-547.
16.
Brodsky JW, Kourosh S, Stills M, Mooney V. Objective evaluation of insert materials for diabetic and athletic footwear.  Foot Ankle.1988;9:111-116.
17.
Campbell G, McLure M, Newell E. Compressive behavior after simulated service conditions of some foamed materials intended as orthotic shoe insoles.  J Rehabil Res Dev.1984;21:57-65.
18.
Pratt D, Rees P, Rodgers C. Assessment of some shock absorbing insoles [technical note].  Prosthet Orthot Int.1986;10:43-45.
19.
 SAS/Stat Software [computer program]. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2000.
20.
Chantelau E, Haage P. An audit of cushioned diabetic footwear: relation to patient compliance.  Diabet Med.1994;11:114-116.
21.
Reiber G, Boulton A, Vileikyte L.  et al.  Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings.  Diabetes Care.1999;22:157-162.
22.
Dyck PJ, Kratz KM, Karnes JL.  et al.  The prevalence by staged severity of various types of diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephropathy in a population-based cohort: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study.  Neurology.1993;43:817-824.
23.
Eastman RC. Neuropathy in diabetes. In: Harris M, Cowie C, Stern M, Boyko E, Reiber G, Bennett P, eds. Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995:339-348. NIH publication 95-1468.
24.
Franklin GM, Kahn LB, Baxter J, Marshall JA, Hamman RF. Sensory neuropathy in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: the San Luis Valley Diabetes Study.  Am J Epidemiol.1990;131:633-643.
25.
Kumar S, Ashe HA, Fernando DJS.  et al.  The prevalence of foot ulceration and its correlates in type 2 diabetic patients: a population-based study.  Diabet Med.1994;11:480-484.
26.
Borssen B, Bergenheim T, Lithner F. The epidemiology of foot lesions in diabetic patients aged 15-50 years.  Diabet Med.1990;7:438-444.
27.
Kreines K, Johnson E, Albrink M.  et al.  The course of peripheral vascular disease in non-insulin-dependent diabetes.  Diabetes Care.1985;8:235-243.
28.
Melton III LJ, Macken KM, Palumbo PJ, Elveback LR. Incidence and prevalence of clinical peripheral vascular disease in a population-based cohort of diabetic patients.  Diabetes Care.1980;3:650-654.
29.
Boyko E, Ahroni JH, Stensel V, Forsberg RC, Davignon DR, Smith DG. A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer: the Seattle Diabetic Foot Study.  Diabetes Care.1999;22:1036-1042.
30.
Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The prevalence and incidence of lower extremity amputation in a diabetic population.  Arch Intern Med.1992;152:610-616.
31.
Reiber GE, Boyko EJ, Smith DG. Lower extremity foot ulcers and amputations in diabetes. In: Harris M, Cowie C, Stern M, Boyko E, Reiber G, Bennett P, eds. Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995:409-428. NIH publication 95-1468.
32.
Ramsey SD, Newton K, Blough D.  et al.  Incidence, outcomes, and cost of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes.  Diabetes Care.1999;22:382-387.
Original Contribution
May 15, 2002

Effect of Therapeutic Footwear on Foot Reulceration in Patients With DiabetesA Randomized Controlled Trial

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Health Services and Rehabilitation Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs (Drs Reiber, Wallace, Maciejewski, and Heagerty, Mr Hayes, and Mss Vath and Yu), Departments of Health Services (Drs Reiber and Maciejewski), Epidemiology (Drs Reiber and LeMaster), Orthopaedic Surgery (Dr Smith), Biostatistics (Ms Yu and Dr Heagerty), and Family Medicine (Dr LeMaster), University of Washington, and Joslin Diabetes Center at Swedish Medical Center (Dr Sullivan), Seattle, Wash.

JAMA. 2002;287(19):2552-2558. doi:10.1001/jama.287.19.2552
Context

Context Many people with diabetes experience lower-limb ulcers. Footwear has been implicated as a primary cause of foot ulcers, yet research is limited on the efficacy of shoe and insert combinations to prevent reulceration.

Objective To determine whether extra-depth and -width therapeutic shoes used with 2 types of inserts reduce reulceration in diabetic individuals with a history of foot ulcer.

Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial of 400 diabetes patients with history of foot ulcer in 2 Washington State health care organizations who did not require custom shoes for foot deformity and were enrolled between August 1997 and December 1998 and followed up for 2 years. Data collected at regular intervals documented physical, foot, and diabetes characteristics; footwear use; foot lesions; and ulcers.

Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive 3 pairs of therapeutic shoes and 3 pairs of customized medium-density cork inserts with a neoprene closed-cell cover (n = 121); to receive 3 pairs of therapeutic shoes and 3 pairs of prefabricated, tapered polyurethane inserts with a brushed nylon cover (n = 119); or to wear their usual footwear (controls; n = 160).

Main Outcome Measure Foot reulceration, compared among the 3 groups.

Results Two-year cumulative reulceration incidence across the 3 groups was low: 15% in the cork-insert group, 14% in the prefabricated-insert group, and 17% in controls. In the intent-to-treat analysis, patients assigned to therapeutic shoes did not have a significantly lower risk of reulceration compared with controls (risk ratio [RR] for the cork-insert group, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.52 and RR the for prefabricated-insert group, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.48-1.48). All ulcer episodes in patients assigned to therapeutic shoes and 88% wearing nonstudy shoes occurred in patients with foot insensitivity.

Conclusions This study of persons without severe foot deformity does not provide evidence to support widespread dispensing of therapeutic shoes and inserts to diabetic patients with a history of foot ulcer. Study shoes and custom cork or preformed polyurethane inserts conferred no significant ulcer reduction compared with control footwear. This study suggests that careful attention to foot care by health care professionals may be more important than therapeutic footwear but does not negate the possibility that special footwear is beneficial in persons with diabetes who do not receive such close attention to foot care by their health care providers or in individuals with severe foot deformities.

Individuals with diabetes incur 67% of all lower-limb amputations in the United States.1 Approximately half of diabetes-related amputations have been attributed to poorly fitting footwear initiating a causal chain leading to foot ulcers and amputations.24 The etiology of diabetic foot ulcers and amputations is well characterized, but the efficacy of footwear in preventing reulceration has undergone limited investigation. Edmonds et al3 described follow-up findings in a tertiary referral population in which 239 ulcer patients were divided into those with ischemic ulcers (absent foot pulses; n = 91) and neuropathic ulcers (sensory loss; n = 148). The study described reulceration in 121 patients in the neuropathic group followed up for an average of 26 months. Among patients in the neuropathic group who received therapeutic and custom shoes, 26% had reulceration vs 83% who did not receive this footwear and wore their own footwear. A randomized clinical trial of a single style of shoe and insert for men and women was conducted in persons with prior foot ulcer at 2 study sites in Italy.5 After 1 year, reulceration occurred in 28% of the therapeutic footwear group vs 58% in those wearing their own footwear.

Many questions remain about the efficacy of various shoe and insert combinations in foot ulcer prevention, even though therapeutic footwear is a covered Medicare benefit.6 Few studies have examined specific protective shoe properties.7 We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether provision of study therapeutic shoes and 2 types of inserts would reduce the incidence of reulceration in individuals with diabetes. We hypothesized that the group assigned to therapeutic shoes with custom cork inserts would have the lowest reulceration rates, followed closely by those assigned to therapeutic shoes with prefabricated inserts.

METHODS
Participants

Participants were selected from among 21 000 Washington State residents with diabetes from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System (VA) and Group Health Cooperative (GHC). Study eligibility criteria were diagnosed diabetes; age 45 to 84 years; men from either the VA or GHC and women from GHC (there were very few female veterans who could meet the eligibility criteria); history of a full-thickness foot lesion or foot infection requiring antibiotic treatment; no foot deformities requiring a custom shoe; shoe size 8 to 12½ for men and 7 to 10½ for women (sizes were limited to contain manufacturing costs); ability to walk 1 block and climb 1 flight of stairs per day (to ensure that the footwear would be worn); and willingness to consent to randomization and study footwear provisions. Exclusion criteria were prior lower-extremity amputation of more than 1 digit; presence of either unhealed or healed lesion in the prior month; requirement of boots, custom shoes, or nontraditional footwear for daily activities; nonambulatory status; or terminal illness that would make 2-year survival unlikely. Our footwear could not safely accommodate persons with severe foot deformities and Charcot feet, so these individuals also were excluded.

Figure 1 shows that of the 763 patients with diabetes who met the eligibility criteria and were asked to participate, 400 agreed to be randomized into the study (186 VA men, 123 GHC men, and 91 GHC women). Study participation was declined due to time and transportation constraints (49%), no interest in research (35%), poor health (6%), and shoe size outside study range or other reasons (10%). Computer-generated block randomization was performed according to health care organization and sex. One hundred twenty-one men and women were randomly assigned to receive 3 pairs of therapeutic shoes and 3 pairs of customized medium-density cork inserts with a neoprene closed-cell cover; 119 were randomly assigned to receive 3 pairs of therapeutic shoes and 3 pairs of prefabricated, tapered polyurethane inserts with a brushed nylon cover; and 160 were randomly assigned as controls to wear their usual footwear. Human subjects approval was granted by the University of Washington, Seattle, and GHC. Participants provided informed consent and were enrolled between August 1997 and December 1998 and followed up for 2 years. They continued to receive regular health care and foot care from the VA or GHC. Participants received no compensation other than the study footwear. To prevent contamination of the footwear interventions by patient education or clinical care, no participants received such education or care at the study site.

Footwear Interventions

The 2 footwear interventions included patient receipt of both study therapeutic shoes and inserts. Men's and women's dress, casual, and athletic shoes were designed and manufactured with assistance from Nike Inc (Beaverton, Ore), Cole-Haan (Livermore, Me), and Lowell Shoe (Hudson, NH) in the most common shoe sizes specifically for study participants.8,9 Bruce Kilgore of Nike Inc provided our study team with expertise on footwear materials, design, and manufacturing processes. Our study team designed shoes and inserts, tested prototypes, and conducted pilot studies of the men's and women's shoes and inserts prior to the clinical trial. The men's dress, casual, and athletic shoes were manufactured by Cole-Haan and the 3 women's shoe styles were manufactured by Lowell Shoe.

The combination shoe last (mold resembling interior shoe shape) provided extra depth in the toe box and extra width across the metatarsal heads. The men's and women's outsoles had a 38-in recess that allowed the insert and foot to drop down into the outsole, providing extra forefoot space without a "boxy" or orthopedic appearance. The men's outsole for all 3 shoe styles was a semirockered forefoot made rigid with a lightweight extended composite shank. Women's shoes were semirockered with a nonextended steel shank and a uniform, more feminine outsole. Study shoes resembled nontherapeutic shoes, and materials for uppers were brown, black, and off-white high-quality leather.

A wide range of potential insole materials (eg, polyurethane foams, viscoelastic polymers) was investigated using evidence of excellent performance.1018 Two types of study inserts were designed to fit the interior contour of the shoes. We chose cork for the customized insert because of its elastic nature (cork takes very little set or deformation), machinability, and a long history as an acceptable material for footwear. Custom cork inserts were produced by scanning the plantar surface of patients' feet using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology. These medium-density, full-length, milled-cork inserts had a 116-in closed-cell neoprene cover. The prefabricated study insert was a 58-in noncustomized tapered polyurethane insert with a brushed nylon cover, designed to be thicker than inserts used in commercial walking shoes. This insert was not based on the digitized form of the participant's foot. These 2 medium-density insert materials represented excellent, established insert technology. A lightweight terry-cloth house slipper (Tru-Stitch Footwear, Malone, NY) with no internal seams and a textured sole was designed for all study participants to use to minimize differences in out-of-shoe exposure. All shoes and inserts for intervention participants were fitted by the same study pedorthist who manufactured the custom inserts, performed shoe-fitting adjustments, and replaced footwear based on wear patterns.

Outcome Measures

Data were collected from patients at baseline and 1 and 2 years on diabetes, overall health, foot, and functional status. This included peripheral pulses and foot sensation as measured using a 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Four visits occurred within 1 month of enrollment to ensure proper footwear fit in the intervention groups. Thereafter, visits were scheduled every 17 weeks to collect information on physical activity, feet, shoes, inserts, and the amount of out-of-bed time that participants wore shoes, socks/stockings, or slippers or went barefoot. Footwear compliance was computed from a physical activity questionnaire by quantifying the time out of bed that was spent "in shoes" or "not in shoes."

The main study outcome measure was incidence of a foot ulcer, defined as a cutaneous erosion extending into or through the dermis to deeper tissue or other cuts that did not heal within 30 days. The pivotal event (triggering the sequence of events preceding each lesion or ulcer) was identified by patient self-report. A footwear-related ulcer was identified from the focused pivotal-event interviews as patient self-report of a footwear-related incident resulting in a break in the skin and documentation of either improper break-in of shoes or a lesion at a site compatible with a footwear-related lesion not healing within 30 days (verified by photographs and medical records). Ulcer episode was defined as the interval from ulcer identification to healing. Multiple ulcers occurring on the same day on the same foot (often the result of minor trauma) were defined as a single episode. Minor lesions and ulcers were documented, characterized, and photographed, and patients were referred to their usual health care practitioners for foot care since foot care was not a study provision. Health care practitioners were notified in writing of lesions and ulcers. Patients wearing intervention footwear who experienced foot ulcers resumed wearing intervention footwear following healing.

Final ulcer classification was determined by a panel of 3 foot care specialists blinded to study group. They reviewed the descriptions, photographs, study and medical records, and causal pathway data. They also verified the assignment of all minor lesions not healing within 30 days, ulcers, and amputations.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline demographic characteristics of participants randomized to each study group were compared by calculating means and SDs or frequencies and proportions. Formal comparison was based on analysis of variance for continuous measurements. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed using all available follow-up time on all randomized patients to assess the impact of intervention on the primary end point. Analyses were carried out using SAS software19 and statistical tests were 2-sided, with P<.05 considered statistically significant.

To analyze the binary primary outcome, any vs no ulceration, we used exact binomial methods to construct confidence intervals (CIs) for the proportion in each study group. The χ2 test or Fisher exact test was used to compare across study groups. We also analyzed total ulcers and ulcer episodes. To compute ulcer rates, we used standard person-time methods and Poisson regression with robust SEs to allow for possible overdispersion. All comparisons were between the group assigned to therapeutic shoes with cork inserts and the control group and between the group assigned to therapeutic shoes with prefabricated inserts and the control group. In secondary analyses, we excluded person-time not wearing footwear for medical or personal reasons. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between covariates and reulceration.

Our power analysis was based on published 2-year reulceration rates of 72% to 87% for participants using their own footwear and 26% for those using prescription shoe and insert combinations.3,20 We assumed that 67% of control participants would wear standard footwear and 33% would cross over to some type of custom shoes, insoles, or in-depth shoes. Over the 2-year study, we anticipated a 20% combined mortality and loss to follow-up. Therefore, we anticipated 2-year reulceration rates of 30% in the cork-insert group, 35% in the prefabricated-insert group, and 58% among controls. Based on these rates, our original sample size was selected to yield 97% power to detect a difference in the rate for the cork-insert group vs the control group and to provide 89% power to detect a difference between the prefabricated-insert group vs the control group.

RESULTS

Baseline participant characteristics are described in Table 1. The average age was 62 years, 23% were female, 78% were white, and the average education was 14 years. Fifty-eight percent of participants were insensate to monofilament and 32% had a moderate foot deformity (hallux limitus, fixed claw toe, or bunion), though significantly fewer patients in the group assigned to therapeutic shoes with prefabricated inserts had these foot deformities than among those assigned to therapeutic shoes with cork inserts or among controls (P = .03).

The time participants were out of bed was divided into "in shoes" and "not in shoes." Compliance with use of intervention shoes when wearing shoes was 83% in the group with cork inserts and 86% in the group with prefabricated inserts. When participants were out of bed and not wearing shoes, they averaged just under 1 hour per day barefoot, 1 hour per day in stockings, and 3 hours per day in slippers.

During the 2-year follow-up interval, physicians prescribed custom shoes for 2.5% of controls and custom inserts for an additional 4.4%. Among controls, 13% purchased therapeutic shoes and an additional 17% purchased over-the-counter inserts. Over the 2-year follow-up period, 5.5% of study participants died and 11% withdrew (see Figure 1).

Sixty-two participants had a total of 95 reulcerations occurring in 84 ulcer episodes. Table 2 shows that the cumulative percentage of participants with foot ulcers during the study period was 15% with therapeutic shoes and cork inserts, 14% with therapeutic shoes and prefabricated inserts, and 17% in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in ulcers or ulcer episodes between groups. The risk ratio (RR) for persons with 1 or more reulcerations in the group with therapeutic shoes and cork inserts compared with those in the control group was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.51-1.52). The RR comparing the group with prefabricated inserts with the control group was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.48-1.48). When examining total ulcer episodes, the RR comparing the group with cork inserts with controls was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.45-1.63) and the RR comparing the group with prefabricated inserts with controls was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.41-1.56). In the secondary analysis, we used logistic regression to control for age, sex, foot deformity, education, and marital status. The RR for reulceration comparing persons without foot sensation with those with sensation was 3.68 (95% CI, 1.81-7.49).

Table 3 shows that the 2 pivotal events that contributed most to ulcer episodes were shoes (39%; 10.7% due to intervention shoes and 28.6% due to nonintervention shoes) and external trauma (31%). Among the 9 persons who developed ulcers while wearing intervention shoes, all had foot insensitivity. Among the 24 persons who developed ulcers while not wearing intervention shoes, 88% had foot insensitivity, and among the 26 patients whose pivotal event was external trauma, 96% had foot insensitivity. Amputation was not a study end point because few instances were expected. Of the 11 amputations that occurred, 6 involved toes and feet and 5 were at the transtibial or transfemoral level.

COMMENT

The same therapeutic shoes were worn by participants in the 2 intervention groups, but their inserts differed. Intervention footwear showed no statistically significant protective effect in ulcer prevention over footwear worn by controls. Cumulative ulcer incidence in all 3 study groups was low during the 2-year follow-up. The customized cork inserts with neoprene covers required considerably more time, equipment, and expense to produce than did the tapered polyurethane and brushed nylon inserts, which performed similarly but were far less expensive.

Despite low ulcer incidence, footwear-related ulcers occurred. There are multiple pathways to foot ulcers. In addition to pathways involving footwear, there are pathways with external trauma when individuals are not wearing shoes.21 Participants' time out of shoes and out of bed averaged 5 hours per day. The slippers we provided to all participants may have influenced the external trauma pathway. We anticipated no impact of footwear on self-care, critical ischemia, or decubitus ulcer pathways. Other strategies are needed to prevent or decrease ulcers from these pathways.

There are other explanations for the low ulcer incidence in our study. Foot insensitivity was present in 58% of participants at baseline and in 66% at 2 years. Control participants had a lower but not statistically significant prevalence of foot insensitivity at baseline. Risk of reulceration was clearly higher in persons with foot insensitivity. In these patients, the proportions of ulcers attributed to intervention shoes, nonintervention shoes, and external trauma were 100%, 88%, and 96% respectively.

Follow-up study visits occurred every 17 weeks, which could have heightened participant awareness of footwear. In addition, when we identified a lesion that could progress to an ulcer, human subjects considerations stipulated that we notify patients and their physicians. Therefore, timely discovery of minor lesions at clinic visits and physician referral may have kept ulcer rates low. In addition, our conservative definition of foot ulcer excluded lesions from external trauma resolving within 30 days. Other investigators have classified similar lesions as ulcers after shorter intervals.

Our study design assumed and was powered for 33% of control patients to acquire therapeutic footwear over the 2-year follow-up. After 2 years, a total of 6.9% of patients received prescriptions and purchased prescribed shoes and/or custom shoes. An additional 13% of control patients purchased off-the-shelf therapeutic shoes and 19% purchased over-the-counter inserts. These crossovers involved a total of 37% of the control population. Footwear purchases by the control group occurred gradually. Our data suggest that footwear purchased and worn are not synonymous. However, this footwear crossover may have attenuated our findings.

Edmonds et al3 reported 26-month reulceration rates of 26% in patients in therapeutic footwear and 83% in their own footwear. However, these findings may have been influenced by inclusion of many patients with severe foot deformities, including uncorrected Charcot feet and prior toe and ray amputations. Patients with more than 1 toe amputation, Charcot feet, or a requirement of custom shoes were excluded from our study because our study shoes could not safely accommodate their custom footwear needs. Patients in the United Kingdom with very severe foot deformities are routinely given custom footwear while in the Pacific Northwest, these patients are increasingly treated with orthopedic foot surgery reconstruction procedures. Differences also may exist in management of minor toe amputations. In the Pacific Northwest, when toes 2, 3, and 4 are removed at or proximal to the metatarsophalangeal joint, leaving the little toe and the great toe, the surgeon often performs a transverse amputation of all toes or a transmetatarsal amputation rather than leaving a foot with 1 or 2 toes, which often goes on to deformity and associated biomechanical difficulties. In the study by Edmonds et al,3 custom footwear, not surgery, was the convention in treating patients with severe foot deformities.

A study of reulceration was conducted at 2 teaching hospitals in Italy. In their clinical trial of 69 persons with diabetes at high risk of ulcer, Uccioli et al5 provided men and women in the intervention group with 1 style of Velcro-closure shoes plus inserts. They reported that 1-year ulcer frequency in the intervention group was 28% compared with 58% in the control group. All participants in our study received 3 pairs of normal-appearing shoes (dress, casual, and athletic styles). In prestudy focus groups, these shoes were aesthetically acceptable to our participants. Over the duration of the study, compliance with our study shoes was 83% to 86%. The Italian study reported intervention footwear compliance as always frequent or continuous based on participant self-reported compliance on a 4-item scale (infrequent, occasional, frequent, or continuous). Exposure to minor trauma when not wearing shoes (mean, 5.2 hours per day in our study) was minimized in our participants by providing specially designed house slippers with no internal seams to intervention and control participants. The final comparison between studies is that on an annual basis, the cumulative incidence of reulceration in all groups in our study was less than one third of that reported for the intervention group of Uccioli et al.

Accurate classification of foot risk in diabetic populations is difficult. Based on evidence from population-based and analytic studies, approximately half of adults with diabetes have 1 or more foot risk conditions (peripheral neuropathy, lower-extremity arterial disease, or foot deformity).2229 Approximately 10% report a prior foot ulcer (similar to our study group),25,26,30 and approximately 5% report a severe foot deformity requiring custom footwear or a prior lower-limb amputation (these individuals were excluded from our study).29,31 Our study findings can be generalized to those with a prior foot ulcer.

This randomized clinical trial has several limitations. The percentage of participants with foot insensitivity at baseline was not as high as expected. Data from this trial and others indicate that participants with foot insensitivity are at highest risk of ulceration. Lesion identification and referral by the study staff and follow-up by primary care physicians at the 2 Pacific Northwest health care organizations may have contributed to our low ulcer rates. We compared our reulceration rates with recently published diabetic foot ulcer rates (not necessarily reulceration rates) from other studies conducted in these 2 organizations and found that their annual incidence was low: 1.9% at GHC and 3.0% at the VA General Internal Medicine Clinic.29,32 Finally, due to limited resources, we were unable to collect blood for glycated hemoglobin measurement.

There are 5 conclusions from this study of persons with prior foot ulcers but no severe foot deformity. First, while it is a popular belief that therapeutic shoes and inserts should be dispensed freely to all patients with diabetes, this study did not provide evidence to support this practice. Second, customized cork inserts offered no benefit over prefabricated polyurethane inserts, and control patients wearing their usual footwear fared as well as intervention patients in therapeutic shoes. Third, this study suggests that careful attention to foot care by physicians may be more important than therapeutic footwear, but the study does not negate the possibility that special footwear is beneficial in persons with diabetes who either do not receive such close attention to foot care by their physicians or have severe foot deformities. Fourth, strategies to reduce external trauma unrelated to shoes appear to be indicated, including safe house slippers. Finally, the highest-risk patients, those who have foot insensitivity, are also the most vulnerable to complications. Limited health care resources might be better used to develop a comprehensive approach to care for these individuals. These patients and their physicians should jointly explore individualized strategies to decrease the events that give rise to foot ulcers.

References
1.
Reiber G. Epidemiology and health care costs for diabetic foot problems. In: Veves A, Giurini J, LoGerfo F, eds. Diabetic Foot: Medical and Surgical Treatment. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2002:35-58.
2.
Crausaz FM, Clavel S, Liniger C, Albeanu A, Assal JP. Additional factors associated with plantar ulcers in diabetic neuropathy.  Diabet Med.1988;5:771-775.
3.
Edmonds ME, Blundell MP, Morris ME, Thomas EM, Cotton LT, Watkins PJ. Improved survival of the diabetic foot: the role of a specialized foot clinic.  QJM.1986;60:763-771.
4.
Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM. Pathways to diabetic limb amputation: basis for prevention.  Diabetes Care.1990;13:513-521.
5.
Uccioli L, Faglia E, Monticone G.  et al.  Manufactured shoes in the prevention of diabetic foot ulcers.  Diabetes Care.1995;18:1376-1378.
6.
Wooldridge J, Bergeron J, Thornton C. Preventing diabetic foot disease: lessons from the Medicare therapeutic shoe demonstration.  Am J Public Health.1996;86:935-938.
7.
Litzelman DK, Marriott RJ, Vinicor F. The role of footwear in the prevention of foot lesions in patients with NIDDM.  Diabetes Care.1997;20:156-162.
8.
Borchers R, Boone D, Joseph A, Smith D, Reiber G. Numerical comparisons of 3-D shapes: application to the insensate foot.  J Prosthet Orthot.1995;7:29-34.
9.
Reiber GE, Smith DG, Boone DA.  et al.  Design and pilot testing of the DVA/Seattle footwear system for diabetic patients with foot insensitivity.  J Rehabil Res Dev.1997;34:1-8.
10.
Philips J. The Functional Foot OrthosisNew York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1990.
11.
Janisse D. Prescription insoles and footwear.  Clin Podiatr Med Surg.1995;12:41-61.
12.
Staats T, Kreichbaum M. Computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing of foot orthoses.  J Prosthet Orthot.1989;1:182-186.
13.
Brand P. The diabetic foot. In: Ellenberg M, Rifkin H, eds. Diabetes Mellitus Theory and Practice. Vol 2. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Medical Examination Publishing Co Inc; 1983:829-850.
14.
Boulton A, Franks C, Betts R, Duckworth T, Ward J. Reduction of abnormal foot pressures in diabetic neuropathy using a new polymer insole material.  Diabetes Care.1984;7:42-46.
15.
Coleman W. Footwear in a management program for injury prevention. In: Levin M, O'Neal L, eds. The Diabetic Foot. 5th ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby–Year Book; 1993:531-547.
16.
Brodsky JW, Kourosh S, Stills M, Mooney V. Objective evaluation of insert materials for diabetic and athletic footwear.  Foot Ankle.1988;9:111-116.
17.
Campbell G, McLure M, Newell E. Compressive behavior after simulated service conditions of some foamed materials intended as orthotic shoe insoles.  J Rehabil Res Dev.1984;21:57-65.
18.
Pratt D, Rees P, Rodgers C. Assessment of some shock absorbing insoles [technical note].  Prosthet Orthot Int.1986;10:43-45.
19.
 SAS/Stat Software [computer program]. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2000.
20.
Chantelau E, Haage P. An audit of cushioned diabetic footwear: relation to patient compliance.  Diabet Med.1994;11:114-116.
21.
Reiber G, Boulton A, Vileikyte L.  et al.  Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings.  Diabetes Care.1999;22:157-162.
22.
Dyck PJ, Kratz KM, Karnes JL.  et al.  The prevalence by staged severity of various types of diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephropathy in a population-based cohort: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study.  Neurology.1993;43:817-824.
23.
Eastman RC. Neuropathy in diabetes. In: Harris M, Cowie C, Stern M, Boyko E, Reiber G, Bennett P, eds. Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995:339-348. NIH publication 95-1468.
24.
Franklin GM, Kahn LB, Baxter J, Marshall JA, Hamman RF. Sensory neuropathy in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: the San Luis Valley Diabetes Study.  Am J Epidemiol.1990;131:633-643.
25.
Kumar S, Ashe HA, Fernando DJS.  et al.  The prevalence of foot ulceration and its correlates in type 2 diabetic patients: a population-based study.  Diabet Med.1994;11:480-484.
26.
Borssen B, Bergenheim T, Lithner F. The epidemiology of foot lesions in diabetic patients aged 15-50 years.  Diabet Med.1990;7:438-444.
27.
Kreines K, Johnson E, Albrink M.  et al.  The course of peripheral vascular disease in non-insulin-dependent diabetes.  Diabetes Care.1985;8:235-243.
28.
Melton III LJ, Macken KM, Palumbo PJ, Elveback LR. Incidence and prevalence of clinical peripheral vascular disease in a population-based cohort of diabetic patients.  Diabetes Care.1980;3:650-654.
29.
Boyko E, Ahroni JH, Stensel V, Forsberg RC, Davignon DR, Smith DG. A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer: the Seattle Diabetic Foot Study.  Diabetes Care.1999;22:1036-1042.
30.
Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The prevalence and incidence of lower extremity amputation in a diabetic population.  Arch Intern Med.1992;152:610-616.
31.
Reiber GE, Boyko EJ, Smith DG. Lower extremity foot ulcers and amputations in diabetes. In: Harris M, Cowie C, Stern M, Boyko E, Reiber G, Bennett P, eds. Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995:409-428. NIH publication 95-1468.
32.
Ramsey SD, Newton K, Blough D.  et al.  Incidence, outcomes, and cost of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes.  Diabetes Care.1999;22:382-387.
×