2Magister Applied of Nursing, Health Polytechnic Ministry of Semarang
3Magister Applied of Nursing, Health Polytechnic Ministry of Semarang
4Health Promotion Department, Diponegoro University
5Poltekkes Kemenkes Semarang, Dental Nursing Department
Tel: +62 816396845; E-mail:
This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a combination of foot care with active ROM and plantar exercise for preventing DFU and reducing its risks. Thirty-four people with diabetes mellitus type 2 who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected randomly and divided to control and intervention groups. They were assessed by questionnaires and observation checklist. The pre-test was assessed using Inlow’s 60-second diabetic foot screening tool. All the subjects got daily foot care for two weeks. But subjects in the intervention group got the combination of daily foot care every day and active Range of Motion (ROM), and plantar exercise every two days. The data were analyzed statistically (dependent and independent-test)
The result showed that there was a significant difference before and after intervention in both groups. But the contribution of risk decrease in the intervention group (40.1%) was higher than the control one (14.3%). There was a significant influence of the combination of daily foot car with ROM and plantar exercise (p-value 0.000). This combination of daily foot care with ROM and Plantar Exercise is recommended to prevent the complication of Diabetes Mellitus.
Keywords: Diabetic foot ulcer; Prevention; Foot care; Range of motion; Plantar exercise
The procedure of foot care consisted of daily foot inspection, washing part of the foot, giving moisturizer, cutting nails as needed, and using safe footwear suggestion. In this study, this procedure on the intervention group was combined with active range of motion (ROM) and plantar exercise every two days. Active ROM procedure covered flexion-extension-adduction-abduction in the hips and toes, flexion-extension of the knees, dorsiflexion and plantar flexion in the ankles, and inversion-eversion of the legs. Whereas plantar exercise was done using a tennis ball that is moved forward, backward, and rotated along of plantar for approximately five minutes. The data were statistically analyzed.
Characteristic |
Control |
Intervention group(n=17) |
Total |
p |
|||
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
||
Socio-Demographic Characteristic |
|||||||
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.000 |
Male |
2 |
11.8 |
2 |
11.8 |
4 |
11.8 |
|
Female |
15 |
88.2 |
15 |
88.2 |
30 |
88.2 |
|
Age (Mean SD) |
51±10.95 |
54± 3.84 |
53±8.29 |
0.072 |
|||
Minimum - maximum |
33 - 69 |
45 - 63 |
33 - 69 |
||||
21 – 40 years old |
3 |
17.6 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
8.8 |
|
41 – 60 years old |
11 |
64.7 |
16 |
94.1 |
27 |
79.5 |
|
61 – 80 years old |
3 |
17.6 |
1 |
5.9 |
4 |
11.7 |
|
Job |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.735 |
Office employee |
2 |
11.8 |
2 |
11.8 |
4 |
11.8 |
|
Farmer |
5 |
29.4 |
3 |
17.7 |
8 |
23.5 |
|
Housewife |
10 |
58.8 |
12 |
70.5 |
22 |
64.7 |
|
Confounding Variable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duration of DM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.00* |
≥ 10 years |
4 |
23.5 |
5 |
29.4 |
9 |
26.5 |
|
< 10 years |
13 |
76.5 |
12 |
70.6 |
25 |
73.5 |
|
Diet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
9 |
52.9 |
10 |
58.8 |
19 |
55.9 |
0.35* |
No |
8 |
47.1 |
7 |
41.2 |
15 |
44.1 |
|
Pharmacology Therapy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sulfonylurea |
5 |
29.4 |
3 |
17.6 |
8 |
23.5 |
0.34* |
Biguanida |
4 |
23.5 |
5 |
29.4 |
9 |
26.5 |
|
Insulin |
1 |
5.9 |
0 |
00.0 |
1 |
2.9 |
|
No Therapy |
7 |
41.2 |
9 |
53.0 |
16 |
47.1 |
|
Blood Glucose (mg/dL) |
234±72,38 |
241±102,69 |
|
|
1.00* |
||
Systole Blood Pressure |
121 ±16,14 |
124 ±12,55 |
|
|
0.56* |
||
Diastole Blood Pressure |
80 ±7,9 |
82 ±14,26 |
|
|
1.00* |
Variable |
Control Group |
Intervention Group |
||||
Mean±SD |
Δ |
p |
Mean±SD |
Δ |
p |
|
DFU Risk Pre-test |
7.20±1.76 |
1,03 |
0,000 |
9.09±2.08 |
3,65 |
0,000 |
DFU Risk Post-test |
6.18±1.40 |
5.44±1.21 |
Variable |
KelompokKontrol |
KelompokIntervensi |
p |
||
Mean±SD |
Min-Max |
Mean±SD |
Min-Max |
||
DFU Risk Pre-test |
7,20±1,76 |
4,5 – 10,0 |
9,08±2,08 |
6,5 – 13,0 |
0,005 |
DFU Risk Post-test |
6,17±1,40 |
4,0 – 9,0 |
5,44±1,21 |
3,5 – 8,0 |
0,112 |
ΔDFU Risk |
1,03±0,93 |
0,0 – 3,5 |
3,65±1,27 |
1,5 – 6,0 |
0,000 |
Meanwhile, we found most of the subjects were housewives. It was in line with previous studies that explain DM patients type II was dominated by the housewives who had free time and mild activities. Another study also described that the lifestyle of housewives was influenced by socio-economic changes and diet imbalance that affect health, nutrition, and metabolism of their body[9,11].
The assessment of DFU risk includes gender, ages, time of suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, blood glucose level, blood’s pressure, the obedience of anti-diabetic treatment, physical activities, and foot care. Inlow’s 60-second diabetic foot screening is the instrument to assess DFU risk. This instrument consists of twelve questions about DFU risk’s indicator [13].
In this study, there were confounding variables that measured and controlled by stratification methods, such as duration of illness, diet, blood glucose level, and blood pressure. Statistically, those confounding factors were not contributed to reduce DFU risk (p-value>0.05).
The reducing of DFU risk happened in the control and intervention groups due to the daily foot care.
In this study, daily foot care was combined with ROM and plantar exercise. Statistically, the decrease of DFU risk on the intervention group was more effective than the control group. The reduction of DFU risk on the intervention group was higher (40.1%) than the control group (14.3%). Some literature said that active ROM on diabetic foot could minimalize DFU risk because it could maintain the joint’s mobility and prevent muscle’s deformity and atrophy[16]. Active ROM method covers the movement of lower side joints, including hips joint, knees, ankles, and also the condyloid radius of the foot[17].
Meanwhile, plantar exercise could stimulate the muscles on plantar or soles by using arch ball roll method. This combination could stimulate the foot’s muscles to contract and compress blood’s vessels to increase blood’s supplies to peripheral tissues [18]. It causes more open capillary nets and more insulin receptors available and active to facilitate blood glucose entry into cells, so the blood glucose level was decreased and reduce the risk of DFU complications[16,19]. The daily foot care could decrease DFU risk significantly, but the combination of daily foot care with ROM and plantar exercise could decrease 40.1 % higher than daily foot care itself (14.3%). Hence the combination of foot care with active range of motion and plantar exercise on reducing diabetic foot ulcer risk was found to be effective.
- Aumiller WD, Anderson DH. Pathogenesis and Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcer. JAAPA. 2015; 28 (5): 28-34. DOI: 10.1097/01.JAA.0000464276.44117.b1.
- Amstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA. Diabetic Foot Ulcer and Their Recurrence. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(24): 2367-2375. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1615439.
- Peternella FMN, Lopes APAT, Arruda GO, Teston EF, Marcon SS. Differences Between Genders in Relation to Factors Associated with Risk of Diabetic Foot in Elderly Persons; A cross-sectional trial. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2016; 6:30-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcte.2016.10.001.
- Obaid HAA, Eljedi A. Risk Factors for The Development of Diabetic Foot in Gaza Strip: A case-control study. Int J Diabetes Res. 2015; 4(1): 1-6. DOI:10.5923/j.diabetes.20150401.01.
- Yazdanpanah L, Nasiri M, Adarvishi S. Literature Review on The Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcer. World J Diabetes. 2015; 6(1):37-53. DOI: 10.4239/wjd.v6.i1.37.
- Jelantik IGMG. Hubungan Faktor Risiko Umur, Jenis Kelamin, Kegemukan dan Hipertensi Dengan Kejadian Diabetes Mellitus Type II di Wilayah Kerja Puskesmas Mataram. Media Bina Ilmiah. 2014; 39: 1978-3787.
- Peternella FMN, Lopes APAT, Arruda GO, Teston EF, Marcon SS. Differences Between Genders in Relation to Factors Associated with Risk of Diabetic Foot in Elderly Persons; A cross-sectional trial. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2016; 6:30-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcte.2016.10.001.
- Liu M, Zhang W, Yan Z, Yuan X. Smoking Increases The Risk of Diabetic Foot Amputation: a meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med. 2018; 15(2): 1680-1685. DOI:10.3892/etm.2017.5538.
- Association AD. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes- 2018. The Journal of Clinical and Applied Research and Education. 2018;41(1)
- Vaidya A, Krettek A. Physical Activity Level and Its Socio-demographic Correlates in Peri-Urban Nepalese Population: a cross-sectional study from the Jhaukhel-Duwakot health demographic surveillance site. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014; 11(1):39. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-39.
- Widyawati IY. Pengaruh Latihan Rentang Gerak Sendi Secara Aktif (Active Lower Range of Motion Exercise) terhadap Tanda dan Gejala Neuropati Diabetik pada Penderita DM Tipe II di Persadia Unit RSU Dr. Soetomo Surabaya. Depok: Universitas Indonesia; 2011
- Inlow's 60-second diabetic foot screen.
- Hidayat RA, Nurhayati I. Perawatan Kaki Pada Penderita Diabetes Mellitus di Rumah. Jurnal Permata Indonesia. 2014; 5(2); 49-54.
- Embuai S, Siauta M, Tuasikal H. Hubungan Diabetes Self Care terhadap Risiko Foot Ulcer pada Klien Diabetes Mellitus. J Health Sci. 2018; 2(2): 83-87.
- Lukita YI, Widayati N, Wantiyah W. Pengaruh Range of Motion (ROM) Aktif Kaki terhadap Risiko terjadinya Ulkus Kaki Diabetik pada Pasien Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 di Desa Kaliwining Kabupaten Jember. Pustaka Kesehatan. 2018; 6(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.19184/pk.v6i2.7776.
- Turan Y, Ertugrul BM, Lipsky BA, Bayraktar K. Does physical therapy and rehabilitation improves the outcome for diabetic foot ulcers? World J Exp Med. 2015; 5(2):130-139. DOI: 10.5493/wjem.v5.i2.130.
- Goldsmith JR, Lidtke RH, Shott S. The Effects of Range-of-Motion Therapy on the Plantar Pressures of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2002; 92(9): 483-490.
- Inlow's 60-second diabetic foot screen.