Abstract
-
Acute Charcot foot is a diagnostic challenge.
-
The exact pathophysiology is not fully understood.
-
Acute Charcot foot is often present with a history of trauma or cellulitis which does not respond to antibiotics.
-
The condition is best managed within a multidisciplinary team.
-
The mainstay of the treatment is mechanical off-loading and total contact casting.
-
Surgery is reserved for select cases.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:568-573. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180003
Introduction
Acute Charcot foot is a rare, disabling condition which can cause widespread destruction of bone and joint architecture with loss of function. Diabetes mellitus is currently the commonest cause typically affecting the foot due to loss of its protective sensations. Early recognition of acute Charcot foot in diabetics is a diagnostic challenge as the clinical suspicion even in high risk patients is often low, and the consequences of a missed diagnosis can be devastating. This article provides an overview of the clinical presentation, investigation and treatment of acute Charcot foot.
Charcot neuroarthropathy (CN) is a rare, but serious, disabling condition which can cause widespread destruction of bone and joint architecture with loss of function. 1 The pathogenesis of CN was classically described by French physician Jean Martin Charcot 2 in 1883 but a complete knowledge of this challenging condition continues to evolve to date. It is, however, certain that any condition resulting in loss of protective sensory innervation or autonomic neuropathy can lead to CN. Common causes include diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, spinal injuries, syringomyelia, syphilis, and congenital insensitivity to pain, 3 and its prevalence among diabetics is about 1%. 4
The chronic stages of CN are easily recognizable with the appearance of an irreversible ‘rocker bottom’ deformity due to midfoot collapse or joint destruction (Fig. 1). However, the earlier stage of CN, which is often described as acute Charcot foot, remains a diagnostic challenge (Fig. 2). It usually presents as a red, hot, swollen foot, and may be indistinguishable from other aetiologies of swollen foot such as cellulitis, sprains or deep vein thrombosis. 5
Radiographs of the foot demonstrating the classic midfoot collapse associated with acute Charcot foot.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 10; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180003
Early appearance of acute Charcot foot. Charcot should be suspected in any diabetic with a swollen red foot.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 10; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180003
Pathophysiology
The understanding of pathophysiology of acute Charcot foot is rapidly evolving, but a multifactorial pathogenesis seems certain. 6 Historically there have been two main theories of how this process develops. The neurovascular theory suggests that nerve damage results in increased local vascularity. This precipitates osteoclastic activation with secondary osteopenia, fractures and deformity. 7 The neurotraumatic theory suggests that microtrauma in insensate joints causes progressive bony destruction with repeated partial healing. There is also associated activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines with resulting increased vascularity and activation of the receptor activator kappa beta (RANK)–RANK ligand (RANKL) axis. This results in osteoclastic activation and bone loss. Ultimately there may be a cycle of fractures followed by progressive joint deformity. 8
Hyperglycaemia in diabetic patients has been shown to increase levels of advanced glycosylation end products (AGEs). This may partially explain the association between poor diabetic control and the development of Charcot as the AGEs are able to upregulate the RANK–RANKL pathway by interacting with their receptor, the RANK receptor, especially after a fracture or repetitive trauma. 9
Clinical features and diagnosis
Patients are most commonly affected in their fifth and sixth decades and both sexes are affected almost equally, although there is a slight male predominance. Most patients have been diabetic for more than five years before the onset of the acute Charcot process. Whilst patients may recall a specific traumatic event which started their symptoms, very often no causative event will be identified. 10 About 25% of patients will ultimately develop similar changes in the other foot. 3
Diagnosis of this condition remains predominantly clinical and is based on the presence of swelling, erythema, increased skin temperature and joint effusion in an insensate joint. The presentation may be indistinguishable from that of cellulitis, gout or deep vein thrombosis. As such, most patients in fact present to emergency medical services at two to three months after the onset of symptoms. Peripheral sensory neuropathy associated with reduced sensation is the predisposing condition that permits the development of arthropathy. Pain, however, may sometimes still be a feature. 11
The Charcot process, as described by Eichenholtz, passes from this acute phase of development through a stage of coalescence, in which the bone fragments are reabsorbed, the oedema lessens, and the foot heals, to the stage of consolidation, in which the final repair and remodelling of bone occurs. 12 The predictable pattern of untreated disease leads to collapse of the longitudinal and transverse arches resulting in a ‘rocker-bottom’ foot or a collapsed and destroyed ankle joint. 13
Diagnosis
Pattern recognition is one of the key features in early diagnosis of acute Charcot foot. This must be suspected in any diabetic patient who presents with swelling, redness, and, sometimes, pain in the foot and ankle that is of short duration (within four to six weeks) as shown in Figure 2. Acute Charcot foot after fracture is also a commonly missed diagnosis and a high index of suspicion with vigilant monitoring is required to prevent complications (Fig. 3). 14 An acute process should be suspected if the temperature of the affected foot is 2°C or more than the contralateral unaffected foot. This is usually measured using an infrared thermometer. 15
Series of radiographs demonstrating acute Charcot after ankle fracture surgery. Fracture fully united after six months.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 10; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180003
Biochemical markers
Laboratory investigations usually are not very helpful and there are no accepted criteria for diagnosis. Common blood markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein values can be normal in the presence of acute Charcot. However, these markers should be used to differentiate from infection. 16
Imaging
For many years there has been a lot of interest in developing an imaging technique which could be both sensitive and specific for detection of acute Charcot foot. 17–22 Plain radiographs have traditionally been the first line of investigation for patients with suspected acute Charcot foot and have stood the test of time. Radiographs provide valuable information about bony anatomy and alignment. In the early stages plain radiographs are often normal but this should not exclude the disease process. In later stages, radiographic findings vary from a subtle fracture to increased bone mineralization or loss of alignment and destruction of the foot architecture. 17
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows detection of subtle changes in an acute Charcot foot in the presence of a normal radiograph. MRI has a high sensitivity and specificity for osteomyelitis and is considered the test of choice for the evaluation of the foot complications in diabetic patients. However, MRI cannot reliably differentiate between an acute Charcot foot and osteomyelitis and has a sensitivity of between 77% and 100% and a specificity of between 80% and 100% in this differentiation. Findings need to be correlated with the clinical picture, along with other evidence of infection in the form of tissue biopsies, cultures and biochemical markers. 18–19
Computed tomography (CT) is more sensitive than plain radiography for detecting osteomyelitis but there are several problems with its use; CT is unreliable in detecting osteomyelitis in the early stages of disease although it can be of significant value in detecting soft tissue collection or abscess. Both metformin therapy and diabetic nephropathy can preclude the use of IV contrast, limiting the use of contrast CT in this patient subgroup.
Several imaging techniques are available which use radioisotope tracers. Triple-phase bone scintigraphy is a very sensitive but not a specific technique for detecting active bony pathology, since when a foot is also affected by vascular insufficiency the study may be falsely reassuring. Indium-111-labelled leukocyte scanning results in the highest sensitivity and specificity for osteomyelitis, which is the commonest differential for acute Charcot foot, and may be of benefit in highly selected patients where a diagnostic dilemma persists despite other investigations. 20
Positron emission tomography (PET) is gaining popularity, especially when combined with CT. The PET–CT hybrid allows improved localization and may prove a more useful tool than MRI in differentiating from osteomyelitis. 21 Weekly Doppler analysis has been successfully used as a tool to help stage the Charcot process. This may be of some benefit in deciding timing of weight-bearing status or surgery. 22
In a patient with low clinical suspicion of osteomyelitis and no sign of acute Charcot foot on the radiographs, either a triple-phase bone scan or non-contrast MRI can be effective in excluding a bony process. In patients with ulceration where deep infection is likely, MRI is the best diagnostic modality, although ultimately there is no test which is both very sensitive and very specific. Therefore, the diagnosis of acute Charcot foot is a combination of clinical features, blood tests and imaging studies combined. 23
Biopsy
Bone biopsy is potentially the only diagnostic technique for definitive discrimination between osteomyelitis and acute Charcot foot. This is not, however, always appropriate and can lead to a number of secondary complications including infection, excessive bleeding, fracture, or new onset of acute Charcot process. These factors may limit the use of this technique to cases where the diagnosis is in significant doubt or where there is a high index of suspicion for osteomyelitis. 24
Management
Diabetic patients with acute Charcot foot are best managed within a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Care is directed at optimizing diabetic control and other risk factors such as smoking and nutritional status. In addition, its aim is to identify patients at risk for further fractures requiring off-loading and management of bone disease with medical or surgical treatment. This approach has helped to improve the quality of diabetic foot care as well as to reduce the rate of major amputations. 25,26
Role of diabetic MDT or foot care teams
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued guidance recommending hospitals having both a pathway for the admission of diabetic patients with acute foot conditions, and a regular multidisciplinary review of patients at risk. The multidisciplinary team should include a diabetes nurse specialist, podiatrist and tissue viability nurse. The team needs access to a diabetologist as well as both vascular and orthopaedic surgeons who have experience in treating diabetic foot problems. 27 The role of the orthopaedic surgeon is increasingly recoginized in the management of acute Charcot foot and is central in providing a biomechanical perspective to reduce the risk of complications. 28
Medical treatment
Initial management consists of off-loading the foot to disrupt the cycle of inflammation and disease progression whilst maintaining bony architecture and preventing deformity. Antiresorptive drugs, in the form of oral bisphosphonates or intravenous pharmacological agents such as Pamidronate, have been used for the management of acute Charcot foot. However, there is no conclusive evidence to support the routine use of pharmacological adjuncts in the management of acute Charcot foot. 29
Mechanical off-loading and the role of total contact casts
Prompt diagnosis is the key element to achieve optimum results in acute Charcot foot as early immobilization and off-loading can arrest the disease progression. Total contact casting (TCC) remains the preferred treatment modality although a range of orthotic, restricted weight bearing and rehabilitative options are available. 30 Figure 4 demonstrates a total contact cast.
Total contact casting in a patient with Charcot neuroarthropathy. The patient may bear weight in the cast but it is changed weekly.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 10; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180003
The TCC when appropriately applied reduces mechanical forces, inflammation and oedema. It aids in the redistribution of plantar pressure, limits bone and joint destruction, and can help to consolidate the progression of deformity. The TCC is designed to cover all major bony prominences of the entire foot and ankle, with well-padded cotton-based bandages (Fig. 4). Frequent cast changes are critical to avoid pistoning due to loosening and ulceration within the cast, and patients should be closely monitored on a weekly basis until the active phase has ended. The patient can then be fitted with a Charcot Restraint Orthotic Walker (CROW) and later with a custom shoe or orthoses. A CROW is a total-contact ankle-foot orthosis, which resembles a TCC but is removable. 31
The duration of off-loading should be guided by clinical assessment; this focuses on the presence of skin-colour and temperature changes. Casting should be continued until the swelling and redness have clinically resolved or the temperature of the affected foot is within 2°C of the contralateral foot or shin (Fig. 5), and there is radiological evidence of good bony union. 32–33 This period could be quite variable and can last from four to six months. The patient should be prescribed diabetic footwear with a custom-made orthosis to prevent recurrence, ulceration, or subsequent deformities after an acute or active episode has resolved. 30
Acute Charcot foot temperature monitoring showing difference of skin temperature during serial total contact casting.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 10; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180003
Surgical management of acute Charcot foot
Where the correct diagnosis is made and non-operative treatment is successful, surgery may be avoided and the risk of subsequent ulcerations and/or amputation may be decreased. Regardless of chosen technique, most surgical management can be challenging owing to the bone and neuropathic changes seen in diabetic Charcot patients. Only patients who are likely to comply with the postoperative regime should be considered for fusion or deformity correction. The patient must have sufficient vascularity in the lower limbs, determined by the ankle brachial index (0.9 to 1.2) and transcutaneous partial oxygen pressure (> 50 mm Hg pressure), in order to permit adequate healing of the surgical wounds. 34
The aim of surgery is to hold the foot in an anatomical position so as to avoid deformity development or progression. This can be achieved by internal or external fixation. Hence the need to take radiographs of the foot in contact cast early on. Typically, changes in Meary’s angle would suggest fore- or midfoot deformity development or progression and the need to abandon casting for rigid means of holding the foot. Hence the need to take serial radiographs of the foot in TCC. The role of surgery is often confused with the chronic setting, which is nothing but deformity correction – albeit rather complex – and may be complicated by ulceration. It is therefore of paramount importance that foot deformity development should be avoided. Once the foot is plantigrade it can be accommodated in a custom-made ankle-foot orthosis. 35,36
Surgery is often avoided during the active inflammatory stage because of the perceived risk of wound infection or mechanical failure of fixation. Early correction of the deformity combined with arthrodesis can, however, be performed in selected cases with adequate soft-tissue perfusion. 35 More recently, reconstruction techniques have gained popularity. These either employ osteotomy and bony fusion supplemented with rigid internal or external fixation to avoid excessive soft-tissue violation. 37
Surgical reconstruction of the midfoot relies on realigning the foot with the constant first ray. A long medial column screw or bridge plate spanning multiple joints may be used to provide stability (Fig. 6). 38 In hindfoot disease, encouraging results have been demonstrated recently using a hindfoot nailing technique. Prolonged immobilization and rehabilitation after surgery is often required. 39
Radiograph demonstrating midfoot collapse as a result of acute Charcot foot (left) and after reconstruction (right).
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 3, 10; 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180003
Patient education
Patient education is of paramount importance to improve the outcome of management of acute Charcot foot. If the patient understands the nature of this limb-threatening condition and the rationale for estimated length of treatment, they are likely to be more motivated to follow the management plan. 40 Emphasis on the importance of optimizing glucose control and attending regular MDT clinics in the long term is likely to reduce the risk of complications related to acute Charcot foot.
Conclusion
All physicians treating diabetic patients should be vigilant for acute Charcot foot and once diagnosed it should be treated as a medical emergency. Prompt treatment can help prevent more extensive collapse and the need for more radical surgeries such as amputation.
Open access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
A. Wee declares payment for lectures from Bone support, activity outside the submitted work.
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
References
- 1.↑
Hastings MK , Johnson JE , Strube MJ et al.. Progression of foot deformity in Charcot neuropathic osteoarthropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95-A:1206–1213.
- 2.↑
Charcot JM . Sur quelques arthropathies qui paraissent dependre d’une lesion du cerveau ou de la moelle epiniere. Arch Physiol (Paris) 1868;1:161–178.
- 3.↑
Caputo GM , Ulbrecht J , Cavanagh PR , Juliano P . The Charcot foot in diabetes: six key points. Am Fam Physician 1998;57:2705–2710.
- 4.↑
McInnes AD . Diabetic foot disease in the United Kingdom: about time to put feet first. J Foot Ankle Res 2012;5:26.
- 5.↑
Chantelau E . The perils of procrastination: effects of early vs. delayed detection and treatment of incipient Charcot fracture. Diabet Med 2005;22:1707–1712.
- 6.↑
Trieb K , Hofstätter SG . Pathophysiology and etiology of the Charcot foot. Orthopade 2015;44:2–7.
- 7.↑
Sanders LJ , Frykberg RG . Diabetic neuropathic osteoarthropathy. In: Frykberg RG , ed. The Charcot foot: the high risk foot in diabetes mellitus. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1991:297–338.
- 8.↑
Jeffcoate WJ , Game F , Cavanagh PR . The role of proinflammatory cytokines in the cause of neuropathic osteoarthropathy (acute Charcot foot) in diabetes. Lancet 2005;366:2058–2061.
- 9.↑
Haslbeck KM , Schleicher E , Bierhaus A et al.. AGE/RAGE/NF-(kappa)B pathway may contribute to the pathogenesis of polyneuropathy in impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2005;113:288–291.
- 10.↑
Papanas N , Maltezos E . Etiology, pathophysiology and classifications of the diabetic Charcot foot. Diabet Foot Ankle 2013;4:1–5.
- 11.↑
Brodsky JW . The diabetic foot. In: Coughlin MJ , Mann RA , Saltzman CL , eds. Surgery of the foot and ankle. Eighth ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 2006:13-41.
- 13.↑
Pakarinen TK , Laine HJ , Mäenpää H , Mattila P , Lahtela J . Long-term outcome and quality of life in patients with Charcot foot. Foot Ankle Surg 2009;15:187–191.
- 14.↑
Kristiansen B . Ankle and foot fractures in diabetics provoking neuropathic joint changes. Acta Orthop Scand 1980;51:975–979.
- 15.↑
Armstrong DG , Lavery LA , Liswood PJ , Todd WF , Tredwell JA . Infrared dermal thermometry for the high-risk diabetic foot. Phys Ther 1997;77:169–175.
- 16.↑
Petrova NL , Moniz C , Elias DA , Buxton-Thomas M , Bates M , Edmonds ME . Is there a systemic inflammatory response in the acute Charcot foot? Diabetes Care 2007;30:997–998.
- 17.↑
Frykberg RG , Morrison WB , Shortt CP , Ting AYI . Imaging of the Charcot foot. In: Frykberg RG , ed. The diabetic Charcot foot: principles and management. Brooklandville, MD: Data Trace Publishing Company, 2010:65–84.
- 18.↑
Sanverdi SE , Ergen BF , Oznur A . Current challenges in imaging of the diabetic foot. Diabet Foot Ankle 2012;3.
- 19.↑
Morrison WB , Ledermann HP , Schweitzer ME . MR imaging of the diabetic foot. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001;9:603–613.
- 20.↑
Larcos G , Brown ML , Sutton RT . Diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients: value of 111In-leukocyte scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;157:527–531.
- 21.↑
Basu S , Chryssikos T , Houseni M , Alavi A . Potential role of FDG PET in the setting of diabetic neuro-osteoarthropathy: can it differentiate uncomplicated Charcot’s neuroarthropathy from osteomyelitis and soft-tissue infection? Nucl Med Commun 2007;28:465–472.
- 22.↑
Wu T , Chen PY , Chen CH , Wang CL . Doppler spectrum analysis: a potentially useful diagnostic tool for planning the treatment of patients with Charcot arthropathy of the foot? J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94:344–347.
- 23.↑
Kapoor A , Page S , Lavelley M , Gale DR , Felson DT . Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing foot osteomyelitis: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:125–132.
- 24.↑
Ertugrul BM , Lipsky BA , Savk O . Osteomyelitis or Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy? Differentiating these disorders in diabetic patients with a foot problem. Diabet Foot Ankle 2013;4:21855.
- 25.↑
Manu CA , Mustafa OG , Bates M et al.. Transformation of the multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinic into a multidisciplinary diabetic foot day unit: results from a service evaluation. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2014;13:173–179
- 26.↑
Baillie C , Rahman S , Youssief A , Khaleel A , Bargery C . Multidisciplinary approach to the management of diabetic foot complications: impact on hospital admissions, limb salvage and amputation rates. Endocrinol Metab Int J 2017;5:00119.
- 27.↑
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, 2016. NICE clinical guideline NG19. Diabetes. Diabetic foot problems: prevention and management. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg119/resources/guidance-diabetic-foot-problems-pdf (date last accessed 3 September 2018).
- 28.↑
Besse JL , Leemrijse T , Deleu PA . Diabetic foot: the orthopedic surgery angle. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011;97:314–329.
- 29.↑
Game FL , Catlow R , Jones GR et al.. Audit of acute Charcot’s disease in the UK: the CDUK study. Diabetologia 2012;55:32–35.
- 30.↑
Christensen TM , Gade-Rasmussen B , Pedersen LW , Hommel E , Holstein PE , Svendsen OL . Duration of off-loading and recurrence rate in Charcot osteoarthropathy treated with less restrictive regimen with removable walker. J Diabetes Complications 2012;26:430–434.
- 31.↑
Pinzur MS , Lio T , Posner M . Treatment of Eichenholtz stage I Charcot foot arthropathy with a weightbearing total contact cast. Foot Ankle Int 2006;27:324–329.
- 32.↑
Moura-Neto A , Fernandes TD , Zantut-Wittmann DE et al.. Charcot foot: skin temperature as a good clinical parameter for predicting disease outcome. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2012;96:11–14.
- 33.↑
Armstrong DG , Lavery LA . Monitoring healing of acute Charcot’s arthropathy with infrared dermal thermometry. J Rehabil Res Dev 1997;34:317–321.
- 34.↑
Marston WA , Davies SW , Armstrong B et al.. Natural history of limbs with arterial insufficiency and chronic ulceration treated without revascularization. J Vasc Surg 2006;44:108–114.
- 35.↑
Mittlmeier T , Klaue K , Haar P , Beck M . Should one consider primary surgical reconstruction in charcot arthropathy of the feet? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:1002–1011.
- 36.↑
Pinzur M . Surgical versus accommodative treatment for Charcot arthropathy of the midfoot. Foot Ankle Int 2004;25:545–554.
- 37.↑
Pinzur MS , Gil J , Belmares J . Treatment of osteomyelitis in charcot foot with single-stage resection of infection, correction of deformity, and maintenance with ring fixation. Foot Ankle Int 2012;33:1069–1074.
- 38.↑
Fidler CM , Watson BC , Reb CW , Hyer CF . Beaming in Charcot arthropathy—intramedullary fixation for complicated reconstructions: a cadaveric study. J Foot Ankle Surg 2017;56:802–804.
- 39.↑
Siebachmeyer M , Boddu K , Bilal A et al.. Outcome of one-stage correction of deformities of the ankle and hindfoot and fusion in Charcot neuroarthropathy using a retrograde intramedullary hindfoot arthrodesis nail. Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:76–82.
- 40.↑
Morgan HM , Entwistle VA , Cribb A et al.. We need to talk about purpose: a critical interpretive synthesis of health and social care professionals’ approaches to self-management support for people with long-term conditions. Health Expect 2017;20:243–259.
