Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1997 Aug;37(2):137-43.
doi: 10.1016/s0168-8227(97)00067-3.

Limited joint mobility of the ankle in diabetic patients with cutaneous sensory deficit

Affiliations

Limited joint mobility of the ankle in diabetic patients with cutaneous sensory deficit

R W Simmons et al. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1997 Aug.

Abstract

Limited joint mobility (LJM) of the ankle joint was measured in 48 diabetic patients classified into three groups: Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM = 15), non-insulin diabetes mellitus (NIDDM = 12) and patients with cutaneous sensory deficit in the foot (CD = 21). Specifically, plantar flexion, dorsiflexion and total range of motion was measured on both feet using goniometric techniques during active and passive movement conditions. No significant bilateral differences were established, therefore values for the right foot were used for statistical analyses. Diabetic patients were matched to 48 non-diabetic controls for age, weight and gender factors. A Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test was used on both feet to assess the integrity of cutaneous sensitivity in all patient and control subjects. Cutaneous sensory deficit patients (CD) had monofilament values greater than two standard deviations below control group mean values. There were no significant differences between the monofilament test values for the IDDM and NIDDM patients and control group data. LJM results indicated both plantar flexion and range of motion in CD patients under active and passive movement conditions were significantly reduced compared to control group data. No differences were observed for any pairwise comparisons between the IDDM and NIDDM groups compared to controls. The data is discussed in terms of the interaction between LJM in the foot and type of diabetic classification.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources