RESUMEN
Introduction: Diabetic foot attack (DFA), also known as diabetic foot ulceration, is a severe and potentially limb-threatening complication of diabetes mellitus. It refers to the development of open sores or ulcers on the feet of individuals with diabetes, often leading to infections, tissue damage, and, in extreme cases, amputation. The underlying cause of DFAs is multifactorial and involves a complex interplay of various factors, including peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, foot deformities, impaired wound healing, and poor glycemic control. This case report would be first of its kind from an orthopedic perspective. Case Report: A 55-year-old white British gentleman, a chronic uncontrolled Type 2 diabetic, was referred by the medical team on a busy on-call night. He presented with a sudden onset pain, swelling, and difficulty in weight bearing on his left foot. He had a non-healing plantar ulcer for over a year. His inflammatory markers were abnormally high and magnetic resonance imaging of his leg and foot showed massive collection in his foot with gas extending along the posterior compartment. Diagnosis of a severe DFA was made, and urgent debridement and washout were carried out. Despite aggressive debridement, patient progressively deteriorated warranting an admission into intensive care unit. After subsequent debridement and local antibiotic therapy, he recovered and was discharged with clinic follow-up. Conclusion: Effective management strategies for DFAs encompass a multidisciplinary approach. Preventive measures play a key role in reducing the incidence of DFAs. Regular foot examinations, self-care education, proper glycemic control, and foot hygiene are essential components of preventive strategies. Patient education regarding self-monitoring, appropriate footwear, and early recognition of foot-related complications is crucial to empower individuals with diabetes to take proactive measures.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pragmatic review of outcomes for single stage revision ACL reconstruction performed in a single center and the reasons for failure in primary surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study included 59 patients with revision ACL reconstruction done by one surgeon from 2007 to 2017.Clinical records, operative notes and x-rays were assessed to find the reasons of failure. RESULTS: The cause of failure was traumatic in 26 (44.1%) patients after primary reconstruction, incorrect tunnel position in 18(30.5%) and biological failure in 15 (25.4%). All ACL revisions were done using autografts; patellar tendon grafts in 33 patients (55.9%), ipsilateral hamstrings in 12 (20.3%), contralateral hamstrings in 9 (15.3%) and quadriceps tendons in 5 (8.5%). Twenty-one patients were contactable as regards postoperative functional outcome scores. There was an average 18 point improvement in Oxford knee score (OKS) post-operatively, 1.6 point improvement in Tegner scores and 30 point improvement in Lysholm scores. One patient (1.7%) developed septic arthritis, 4 (6.8%) had superficial infection, while 6 (10.2%) had residual instability after revision but did not have further surgery. There was lack of full extension in 4 (6.8%) patients. In BTB grafts, 2 (6.1%) patients sustained a post-traumatic patellar fracture. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Good outcomes of single stage revision ACL reconstruction surgery are achievable as de-monstrated in our cohort. 2. There is need for good quality research to identify whether BTB, hamstrings or quadriceps autografts are better for ACL Reconstruction.