Skip Navigation



Rheumatology Advance Access published online on October 12, 2004
Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh435
Rheumatology © British Society for Rheumatology 2004; all rights reserved
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
44/2/207    most recent
keh435v1
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davys, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Woodburn, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davys, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Woodburn, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received August 22, 2004
Accepted September 10, 2004

Original Papers

Debridement of plantar callosities in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial

H. J. Davys 1, D. E. Turner 2, P. S. Helliwell 2, P. G. Conaghan 2, P. Emery 2, and J. Woodburn 2*

1 Foot Health Department, The Leeds General Infirmary, The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
2 Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: j.woodburn{at}leeds.ac.uk.


  Abstract

Objective. To compare forefoot pain, pressure and function before and after normal and sham callus treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Patients and methods. Thirty-eight RA patients were randomly assigned to normal (NCT group) or sham (SCT) scalpel debridement. The sham procedure comprised blunt-edged scalpel paring of the callus which delivered a physical stimulus but left the hyperkeratotic tissue intact, the procedure being partially obscured from the patient. Forefoot pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), pressure using a high-resolution foot pressure scanner and function using the spatial-temporal gait parameters measured on an instrumented walkway. Radiographic scores of joint erosion were obtained for metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints with and without overlying callosities. The trial consisted of a randomized sham-controlled phase evaluating the immediate same-day treatment effect and an unblinded 4-week follow-up phase.

Results. During the sham-controlled phase, forefoot pain improved in both groups by only 3 points on a VAS and no statistically significant between-group difference was found (P = 0.48). When data were pooled during the unblinded phase, the improvement in forefoot pain reached a peak after 2 days and gradually lessened over the next 28 days. Following debridement, peak pressures at the callus sites decreased in the NCT group and increased in the SCT group, but there was no statistically significant between-group difference (P = 0.16). The area of and duration of contact of the callus site on the ground remained unchanged following treatment in both groups. Following debridement, walking speed was increased, the stride-length was longer and the double-support time shorter in both groups; however, between-group differences did not reach levels of statistical significance. MTP joints with overlying callus were significantly more eroded than those without (P = 0.02).

Conclusions. Treatment of painful plantar callosities in RA using scalpel debridement lessened forefoot pain but the effect was no greater than sham treatment. Localized pressure or gait function was not significantly improved following treatment.

Keywords: Plantar callosities; Callus debridement; Forefoot pain; Metatarsophalangeal joint; Gait parameters.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.