Comment on van Netten, et al: Definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease

Abstract

Summary Objective The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) recently published updated definitions for the diabetic foot field. However, the suggested definitions of lower limb amputations differ from the definitions of the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), which may create problems when implementing the definitions. This paper compares and discusses the amputation definitions of IWGDF and ISO. Results Despite many similarities, the IWGDF and ISO systems have some important differences. First, the IWGDF uses the term “minor amputation” which is value‐laden, arbitrary and has been defined in several different ways in the literature. Second, the IWGDF system lacks descriptions of amputations distal or through the ankle, which may increase the risk for misclassification. Third, hip disarticulations and transpelvic amputations are not included in the IWGDF system. Conclusion It is suggested that future updates of the IWGDF definitions should be aligned with those of ISO, to meet the goal of global consensus on terminology related to lower limb amputation.

Keywords

• amputation
• classification
• diabetic foot