Skip to main content


We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Keynote presentation
  • Open Access

Biomechanical factors in diabetic foot disease

  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 4,
  • 2 and
  • 2
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20081 (Suppl 1) :K4

  • Published:


  • Shear Stress
  • Vascular Disease
  • Extremity Function
  • Finite Element Modelling
  • Nerve Damage


This presentation will review the evidence that has led to the current understanding of diabetic foot complications, discuss some of the authors' current work, and identify unsolved problems for future research and clinical application.


Although the risk of vascular disease is markedly increased in diabetes [1], it is the combination of altered vascular status and nerve damage that often leads to ulceration and amputation [2]. Important early studies by Brand and colleagues [3] focused on elevated stress in a deformed, neuropathic limb as a causative factor in tissue breakdown and this has been a constant theme of experimental and analytical studies to the present day.

The stress component normal to the foot (usually called plantar pressure) has typically been available for study [4] and this quantity is associated with the risk of future ulceration [5]. We have shown it to be useful, together with foot shape, in the design of pressure relieving footwear [6] and others have derived quantities such as pressure gradient to indicate risk [7]. Recent studies of plantar shear stress [8] have reported higher neuropathic/control ratios than for plantar pressure, suggesting that shear stress may have an important role in tissue damage.

The measurement of pressure between the foot and the footwear is potentially very useful clinically [9]. If the patient is compliant with footwear use, the stresses measured using in-shoe techniques reflect the influence of anatomical structure, lower extremity function, lifestyle, and footwear construction.

Finite element modelling of the foot, and in some cases footwear, has been explored by a number of groups [1012] to provide estimates of quantities that cannot be directly measured or to perform simulations that would be onerous or dangerous for human subjects. Our own recent work has been directed towards the development of more realistic soft tissue models utilizing detailed deformation measurements of foot structures [13] and an attempt to reduce the burden of mesh development by the use of morphing techniques to modify stock meshes.


More effort needs to be directed towards the application of biomechanics research to benefit the patient. This will require clear demonstration of improved outcomes when biomechanically based interventions are conducted.



We acknowledge support from NIH Grants 5R01 HD037433 and T32 AR50959.

Authors’ Affiliations

Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
Department of Anaesthesiology Research, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
Department of Orthopaedics, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA


  1. Mazzone T, et al: Lancet. 2008, 371: 1800-9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60768-0.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kles KA, Vinik AI: Curr Diabetes Rev. 2006, 2 (2): 131-45. 10.2174/157339906776818569.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman J, et al: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964, 45-B (4): 652-73.Google Scholar
  4. Bus SA, et al: Diabetes Metab Res Re. 2008, S162-80. 10.1002/dmrr.850. Suppl 1Google Scholar
  5. Crawford F, et al: QJM. 2007, 100 (2): 65-86. 10.1093/qjmed/hcl140.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Owings TM, et al: Diabetes Care. 2008, 31 (5): 839-44. 10.2337/dc07-2288.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mueller MJ, et al: Diabetes Care. 2005, 28 (12): 2908-12. 10.2337/diacare.28.12.2908.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Yavuz M, et al: J Biomech. 2008, 41 (3): 556-9. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.10.008.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Guldemond NA, et al: Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007, 77 (2): 203-9. 10.1016/j.diabres.2006.11.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung JT, Zhang M: Med Eng Phys. 2008, 30 (3): 269-77. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2007.05.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Actis RL, et al: Med Biol Eng Comput. 2008, 46 (4): 363-71. 10.1007/s11517-008-0311-5.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Yarnitzky G, et al: J Biomech. 2006, 39 (14): 2673-89. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.08.021.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Petre M, et al: J Biomech. 2008, 41 (2): 470-4. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.09.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© Cavanagh et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd.