Accuracy and durability of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: what is the useful service life?

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the accuracy and effective service life of commercially available Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments with repetitive loading. METHODS We obtained 6 brands of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments (SWM) from commercial vendors identified from the Internet and the federal registry. Five monofilaments of each brand were subjected to repeat loading cycles, allowed to rest over night and loaded again the next day. First, sets of five monofilaments were loaded 25 times for each of five days. Then sets of five monofilaments were subjected to 200 loading cycles a day for 15 days. A testing jig ensured each SWM was loaded perpendicular to a digital pressure plate. The buckling force was measured via the pressure plate to determine failure loads. Several statistical techniques were used to examine the behavior of the monofilaments over repeated loadings: time series analysis, ANOVA and nonparametric comparisons of load distributions. RESULTS The monofilaments tested were neither precise nor accurate. The plasticity of filaments increased with repeated loadings resulting in lower bending forces. Individual and average bending forces varied widely both within and between monofilament brands. All monofilaments showed a typical material failure pattern. Initially the bending force was high but rapidly decreased and then leveled out at levels 1-2g lower than the starting values. After resting over night, the initial bending force was again high but usually not as high as the previous day and bending forces decreased and then leveled out. Most monofilaments did not start at the accepted 10-g buckling force but varied by up to 30% (p<0.01). At best, monofilaments starting at the accepted 10±1g buckling force would remain within a usable range (9-11g) for 7-9 days or to evaluate 70-90 patients. CONCLUSION Commercially available SWM have significant variability within and between devices from different manufacturers. Their actual bending force varies widely from their designated 10g value. When used they have a short service life where the instrument is within 10% of their initial bending force which is not usually the stated 10g of force.

[1]  D. Hu,et al.  Use of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament in the strong heart study. Risk factors for clinical neuropathy. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[2]  M. McGill,et al.  Use of the Semmes–Weinstein 5.07/10 gram monofilament: the long and the short of it , 1998, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[3]  D. Armstrong,et al.  Choosing a practical screening instrument to identify patients at risk for diabetic foot ulceration. , 1998, Archives of internal medicine.

[4]  D. Armstrong,et al.  Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. , 2005, JAMA.

[5]  A. Boulton,et al.  The global burden of diabetic foot disease , 2005, The Lancet.

[6]  L. Lavery,et al.  Assessing the feet of patients with diabetes. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[7]  L. S. Tan The clinical use of the 10g monofilament and its limitations: a review. , 2010, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[8]  O. Petrov,et al.  The durability of the Semmes-Weinstein 5.07 monofilament. , 2000, The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons.

[9]  C. Grunfeld,et al.  Aesthesiometry: quantification of cutaneous pressure sensation in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. , 1988, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  D. Armstrong The 10-g monofilament: the diagnostic divining rod for the diabetic foot? , 2000, Diabetes care.

[11]  Joseph L. Mills,et al.  Comprehensive fool 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 , 2008 .

[12]  E. Etchells,et al.  Clinical examination for the detection of protective sensation in the feet of diabetic patients , 1999, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[13]  J Booth,et al.  Differences in the performance of commercially available 10-g monofilaments. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[14]  D K Yue,et al.  Possible sources of discrepancies in the use of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Impact on prevalence of insensate foot and workload requirements. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[15]  A. Veves,et al.  Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: a simple, effective and inexpensive screening device for identifying diabetic patients at risk of foot ulceration. , 1991, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[16]  P. Darden,et al.  Adolescent Medicine in Pediatric Practice: A Survey of Practice and Training , 1995, The American journal of the medical sciences.

[17]  R. Nelson,et al.  Do foot examinations reduce the risk of diabetic amputation? , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[18]  A. Boulton The Pathogenesis of Diabetic Foot Problems: an Overview , 1996, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[19]  W L Buford,et al.  The force/time relationship of clinically used sensory testing instruments. , 1997, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[20]  Michael J. Mueller,et al.  Comprehensive Foot Examination and Risk Assessment , 2008, Diabetes Care.

[21]  J. Griffiths,et al.  The North‐West Diabetes Foot Care Study: incidence of, and risk factors for, new diabetic foot ulceration in a community‐based patient cohort , 2002, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[22]  D. Armstrong,et al.  Practical criteria for screening patients at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration. , 1998, Archives of internal medicine.

[23]  A. Boulton The diabetic foot: from art to science. The 18th Camillo Golgi lecture , 2004, Diabetologia.

[24]  L. Lavery,et al.  Disease management for the diabetic foot: effectiveness of a diabetic foot prevention program to reduce amputations and hospitalizations. , 2005, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[25]  S. Simon,et al.  The Semmes–Weinstein Monofilament as a Potential Predictor of Foot Ulceration in Patients With Noninsulin‐Dependent Diabetes , 1995, The American journal of the medical sciences.

[26]  A. Jirkovska,et al.  Identification of patients at risk for diabetic foot: a comparison of standardized noninvasive testing with routine practice at community diabetes clinics. , 2001, Journal of diabetes and its complications.