A comparative study between Wagner’s classification and new wound based diabetic foot ulcer severity score
Keywords:Diabetic ulcer severity score, Wagners classification, Diabetes
Background: Diabetes is considered to be one of the most common health problems all over the world in 21st century. In fact, it has been coined the ‘Black death of the 21st century due to its stark similarities with the 14th century plague in terms of rapid increase in its prevalence, morbidity and mortality. According to WHO, the number of diabetic patients in 2000 reached to 171 million and was predicted to increase to 380 million by 2020. The Indian diabetic population is expected to increase to 57 million by the year 2025. Diabetic foot ulcers are one of the most distressing complications of diabetes affecting around 15% of people with diabetes. The annual incidence of diabetic foot ulcers is around 3% and the reported incidence in U.S and U.K studies ranges as high as 10%. It has been reported that 85% of the lower limb amputations in diabetic patients are preceded by foot ulceration. These systems are variously based on the site of ulcer, depth, and presence or absence of neuropathy, infection and peripheral arterial disease and have been used to compare the outcomes. Diabetic ulcer severity score (DUSS) is one of the latest wound-based systems of classification. However, there is paucity of enough data to validate whether DUSS system is better as compared to other established and commonly used scoring system like Wagner’s classification. Hence, it was decided to validate DUSS scoring system with Wagner’s classification by comparing both keeping in view outcome of the disease.
Methods: Patients admitted under various surgical units from January 2022-January 2023, at Mamata medical college and hospital, Khammam. Total of 40 diabetic patients with diabetic foot ulcers irrespective of their duration, attending surgical outpatient clinic or admitted into the hospital (Mamata general hospital) were recruited into the study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned below.
Results: DUSS score and Wagner’s score were found to be almost equal in evaluating the scores for treatment as p value was found to be statistically significant (p=0.001) and by KAPPA stats there was an absolute agreement (score 1) between DUSS and Wagner’s scoring system.
Conclusions: The new severity scoring system (DUSS) is equal to gold standard Wagner’s scoring system for predictive analysis which also provides an early idea regarding hospital admission, local surgery and health care costs. Since this scoring system 72 can be easily applied in daily clinical practice, it may be suitable in estimating putative healthcare costs.
McInnes AD. Diabetic foot disease in the United Kingdom: about time to put feet first. J Foot Ankle Res. 2012;5(1):1.
Lazzarini PA, Gurr JM, Rogers JR, Schox A, Bergin SM. Diabetes foot disease: the Cinderella of Australian diabetes management? J Foot Ankle Res. 2012;5(1):1.
Aalaa M, Malazy OT, Sanjari M, Peimani M, Mohajeri-Tehrani MR. Nurses’ role in diabetic foot prevention and care; a review. J Diabetes Metabol Disord. 2012;11(1):1.
Shanmugam P, Jeya M, Linda SS. The bacteriology of diabetic foot ulcers, with a special reference to multidrug resistant strains. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(3):441-5.
Singh S, Pai DR, Yuhhui C. Diabetic Foot Ulcer? Diagnosis and Management. Clin Res Foot Ankle. 2013;2013.
Clayton W, Elasy TA. A review of the pathophysiology, classification, and treatment of foot ulcers in diabetic patients. Clin Diabetes. 2009;27(2):52-8.
Chalya PL, Mabula JB, Dass RM, Kabangila R, Jaka H, Mchembe MD et al. Surgical management of Diabetic foot ulcers: A Tanzanian university teaching hospital experience. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4(1):1.
Hobizal KB, Wukich DK. Diabetic foot infections: current concept review. Diabetic Foot Ankle. 2012;8:3.
Deribe B, Woldemichael K, Nemera G. Prevalence and factors influencing diabetic foot ulcer among diabetic patients attending Arbaminch Hospital, South Ethiopia. J Diabetes Metabol. 2014;2014.
Jude E. Assessment of the diabetic foot. Chronic Wound Care: Chapter 58. Krasner, DL. A Clinical Sourcebook for Healthcare Professionals, Third Edition, HMP Communications Inc. 2001;589-97.
Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Diabetic foot infections: stepwise medical and surgical management. Int Wound J. 2004;1(2):123-32.
McKeown KC. History of the diabetic foot. Foot. 1992;2(3):179-82.
JOSLIN EP. The menace of diabetic gangrene. N Eng J Med. 1934;211(1):16-20.
Ward JD. The cost of diabetic foot problems. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;8(1):55-7.
Foster A, Coles PC. Psychological aspects of treating the diabetic foot. Pract Diab Int. 1997;14(2):56-8.
Wagner FW. The dysvascular foot: a system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle Int. 1981;2(2):64-122.
Gupta A, Haq M, SinghM. Management Option in Diabetic Foot According to Wagner’s Classification: An Observational Study. JK Sci J Med Educ Res. 2016;18(1).
Rajyalakshmi Y, Amruthavalli BV. Evaluation and Management of Diabetic Foot According to Wagner’s Classification. J Dental Med Sci. 2017;16(12):25-33.
Akhter JM, Khan IA, Shahpurkar VV, Khanam N, Syed ZQ. Evaluation of the diabetic foot according to Wagner’s classification in a rural teaching hospital. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis. 2011;11:74-79.
Rathur HM, Boulton AJ. Pathogenesis of foot ulcers and the need for offloading. Hormone Metabol Res. 2005;37(S 1):61-8.
Kummankandath SA. Validation of diabetic ulcer severity score. Int Surg J. 2016;3(3):1509-16.