Differences in the performance of commercially available 10-g monofilaments.

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.

[1]  F. Vinicor,et al.  Independent Physiological Predictors of Foot Lesions in Patients With NIDDM , 1997, Diabetes Care.

[2]  S. Rith-Najarian,et al.  Identifying Diabetic Patients at High Risk for Lower-Extremity Amputation in a Primary Health Care Setting: A prospective evaluation of simple screening criteria , 1992, Diabetes Care.

[3]  M. Airey,et al.  The Size of the Problem: Epidemiological and Economic Aspects of Foot Problems in Diabetes , 2002 .

[4]  E H Wagner,et al.  Incidence, outcomes, and cost of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[5]  A. Veves,et al.  Comparison of Risk Factors for Foot Problems in Diabetic Patients Attending Teaching Hospital Outpatient Clinics in Four Different European States , 1994, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[6]  D G Smith,et al.  Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[7]  A. Boulton,et al.  Report of the Diabetic Foot and Amputation Group. , 1996, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[8]  S. Timoshenko,et al.  Elements Of Strength Of Materials , 1935 .

[9]  J. Peters,et al.  The Epidemiology and Cost of Inpatient Care for Peripheral Vascular Disease, Infection, Neuropathy, and Ulceration in Diabetes , 1998, Diabetes Care.

[10]  J. Bowker,et al.  Impaired Vibratory Perception and Diabetic Foot Ulceration , 1986, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[11]  J. Birke,et al.  Evaluation of a Self-Administered Sensory Testing Tool to Identify Patients at Risk of Diabetes-Related Foot Problems , 1998, Diabetes Care.

[12]  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.

[13]  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.

[14]  G. Reiber,et al.  The Epidemiology of Diabetic Foot Problems , 1996, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[15]  Michael J. Mueller,et al.  Identifying patients with diabetes mellitus who are at risk for lower-extremity complications: use of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[16]  D. Smith,et al.  Lower-extremity amputation in diabetes. The independent effects of peripheral vascular disease, sensory neuropathy, and foot ulcers. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[17]  P G Wiles,et al.  Vibration Perception Threshold: Influence of Age, Height, Sex, and Smoking, and Calculation of Accurate Centile Values , 1991, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[18]  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.

[19]  G. Reiber,et al.  Pathways to Diabetic Limb Amputation: Basis for Prevention , 1990, Diabetes Care.

[20]  A. Veves,et al.  The Prediction of Diabetic Neuropathic Foot Ulceration Using Vibration Perception Thresholds: A prospective study , 1994, Diabetes Care.

[21]  P. Sönksen,et al.  Outcome on diabetic foot complications in relation to clinical examination and quantitative sensory testing: a case–control study , 1998, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[22]  P. Sönksen,et al.  Use of a biothesiometer to measure individual vibration thresholds and their variation in 519 non-diabetic subjects. , 1984, British medical journal.

[23]  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.

[24]  D. Sims,et al.  Risk Factors in the Diabetic Foot , 1988 .