Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Booth, J.
Right arrow Articles by Young, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Booth, J.
Right arrow Articles by Young, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Diabetes Care, Vol 23, Issue 7 984-988, Copyright © 2000 by American Diabetes Association

ARTICLES

Differences in the performance of commercially available 10-g monofilaments

J Booth and MJ Young
Department of Podiatry, School of Health Professions and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, UK. j.booth@soton.ac.uk

OBJECTIVE: This independent study was designed to determine the accuracy of 10-g monofilaments manufactured and supplied by popular commercial companies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 160 new 10-g monofilaments (30 Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments [North Coast Medical], 30 Timesco/Sensory Testing Systems monofilaments, 50 Owen Mumford Neuropens, and 50 Bailey Instruments monofilaments) were tested using a calibrated load cell. Each monofilament was subjected to 10 mechanical bucklings of 10 mm while the load cell detected the maximum buckling force. Longevity testing was performed on a subset of the monofilaments by subjecting them to continuous compressions until the buckling force was <9 g. RESULTS: The accuracy of monofilaments to produce a buckling force of 10 g varies among manufacturers. Bailey Instruments and Owen Mumford filaments were the most accurate with 100% buckling within +/-1.0 g of 10 g. Only 70% of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments from North Coast Medical buckled within +/-1.0 g of 10 g. A total of 80% of Timesco filaments buckled at <8 g. Longevity tests on Bailey Instruments and Owen Mumford monofilaments demonstrated that 80% continued to buckle within 10% of 10 g after 100 compressions, but only 50% were within this range after 200 compressions. The maximum amount of recovery achieved in any monofilament occurred within 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: Monofilaments made by either Bailey Instruments or Owen Mumford are recommended for use in clinical practice. North Coast Medical monofilaments may operate differently in the U.S. because of different environmental conditions such as differences in humidity. Timesco/Sensory Testing Systems monofilaments were neither accurate enough nor Conformity European marked to recommend their use in the U.K. Longevity and recovery testing suggest that each monofilament will survive usage on approximately 10 patients before needing a recovery time of 24 h before further use.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
A. J.M. Boulton, D. G. Armstrong, S. F. Albert, R. G. Frykberg, R. Hellman, M. S. Kirkman, L. A. Lavery, J. W. LeMaster, J. L. Mills Sr., M. J. Mueller, et al.
Comprehensive Foot Examination and Risk Assessment: A report of the Task Force of the Foot Care Interest Group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
Diabetes Care, August 1, 2008; 31(8): 1679 - 1685.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
L. A. Lavery, D. P. Murdoch, J. Williams, and D. C. Lavery
Does Anodyne Light Therapy Improve Peripheral Neuropathy in Diabetes?: A double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized trial to evaluate monochromatic infrared photoenergy
Diabetes Care, February 1, 2008; 31(2): 316 - 321.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
H. M. Rathur and A. J. M. Boulton
Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of diabetic neuropathy
J Bone Joint Surg Br, December 1, 2005; 87-B(12): 1605 - 1610.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
H. Radoiu, G. D. Rosson, E. Andonian, J. Senatore, and A. L. Dellon
Comparison of Measures of Large-Fiber Nerve Function in Patients with Chronic Nerve Compression and Neuropathy
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, September 1, 2005; 95(5): 438 - 445.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
W. A. Wood, M. A. Wood, S. A. Werter, J. J. Menn, S. A. Hamilton, R. Jacoby, and A. L. Dellon
Testing for Loss of Protective Sensation in Patients with Foot Ulceration: A Cross-sectional Study
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, September 1, 2005; 95(5): 469 - 474.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
N. Singh, D. G. Armstrong, and B. A. Lipsky
Preventing Foot Ulcers in Patients With Diabetes
JAMA, January 12, 2005; 293(2): 217 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
A. J.M. Boulton, R. A. Malik, J. C. Arezzo, and J. M. Sosenko
Diabetic Somatic Neuropathies
Diabetes Care, June 1, 2004; 27(6): 1458 - 1486.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum
Copyright © 2000 by the American Diabetes Association.