Effect of a multidisciplinary team approach in patients with diabetic foot ulcers on major adverse limb events (MALEs): systematic review and meta-analysis for the development of the Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome

The treatment of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is extremely complex, requiring a comprehensive approach that involves a variety of different healthcare professionals. Several studies have shown that a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is useful to achieve good clinical outcomes, reducing major and minor amputation and increasing the chance of healing. Despite this, the multidisciplinary approach is not always a recognized treatment strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of an MDT approach on major adverse limb events, healing, time-to-heal, all-cause mortality, and other clinical outcomes in patients with active DFUs. The present meta-analysis was performed for the purpose of developing Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot with the support of the Italian Society of Diabetology (Società Italiana di Diabetologia, SID) and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (Associazione Medici Diabetologi, AMD). The study was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. All randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with a duration of at least 26 weeks, which compared the MDT approach with any other organizational strategy in the management of patients with DFUs were considered. Animal studies were excluded. A search of Medline and Embase databases was performed up until the May 1st, 2023. Patients managed by an MDT were reported to have better outcomes in terms of healing, minor and major amputation, and survival in comparison with those managed using other approaches. No data were found on quality of life, returning-to-walking, and emergency admission. Authors concluded that the MDT may be effective in improving outcomes in patients with DFUs.

Carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy surgery techniques: A 30‑year time‑lapse

Carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting (CAS), are the most important axes in carotid artery interventional management. A bibliometric analysis permits an easier access to the current literature trends and information to design future studies. The aim of the present study was to identify the knowledge routes on CAS and examine the research front on the topic. The search was interpreted in Scopus, from 1994 to 2023, and included only original articles and reviews. The BibTex format was used to download all citation and bibliographic data. The present analysis was conducted in two parts, a descriptive one and a network extraction process. Between 1994 and 2023, 34,503 references and 7,758 authors were recorded. The annual growth rate was 21.64%. The CAVATAS trial was the most cited article. As regards word trends, since 2017, trans-carotid stenting, risk factors and plaque characteristics are highlighted. CAS remains an area of high interest with a publication growth rate of >20% per year. As numerous questions remain to be answered, the need to determine the role of CAS may drive further research.

Modern multidisciplinary team approach is crucial in treatment for critical limb threatening ischemia

The aim of this study was to provide a brief overview of the history the multidisciplinary team approach, highlighting the benefit to the patient with critical limb threatening ischemia in relation to health care economics. Furthermore, we provided a description of the requisites and key components, showing how to build a multidisciplinary team.

Effect of contact with podiatry in a team approach context on diabetic foot ulcer and lower extremity amputation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach has been shown to reduce diabetic foot ulcerations (DFUs) and lower extremity amputations (LEAs), but there is heterogeneity between team members and interventions. Podiatrists have been suggested as “gatekeepers” for the prevention and management of DFUs. The purpose of our study is to review the effect of podiatric interventions in MDTs on DFUs and LEAs. We conducted a systematic review of available literature. Data’s heterogeneity about DFU outcomes made it impossible for us to include it in a meta-analysis, but we identified 12 studies fulfilling inclusion criteria that allowed for them to be included for LEA outcomes. With the exception of one study, all reported favourable outcomes for MDTs that include podiatry. We found statistical significance in favour of an MDT approach including podiatrists for our primary outcome (total LEAs (RR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.54–0.89, I² = 64%, P = 0.002)) and major LEAs (RR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.23–0.90, I² = 67%, P < 0.02). Our systematic review, with a standard search strategy, is the first to specifically address the relevant role of podiatrists and their interventions in an MDT approach for DFU management. Our observations support the literature that MDTs including podiatrists have a positive effect on patient outcomes but there is insufficient evidence that MDTs with podiatry management can reduce the risk of LEAs. Our study highlights the necessity for intervention descriptions and role definition in team approach in daily practice and in published literature.