IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot of patients with diabetes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potential mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2022, we searched the literature using PubMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection (DFI). On the basis of pre-determined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as non-controlled, studies in English. We then developed evidence statements based on the included papers. RESULTS: We selected a total of 64 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The certainty of the majority of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot/Infectious Diseases Society of America scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of the need for hospitalisation, lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue infection. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Although non-culture techniques, especially next-generation sequencing, are likely to identify more bacteria from tissue samples including bone than standard cultures, no studies have established a significant impact on the management of patients with DFIs. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the combination of a positive probe-to-bone test and elevated ESR supports this diagnosis. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO), but advanced imaging methods including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging when MRI is not feasible help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localisation of infection is uncertain. Intra-operative or non-per-wound percutaneous biopsy is the best method to accurately identify bone pathogens in case of a suspicion of a DFO. Bedside percutaneous biopsies are effective and safe and are an option to obtain bone culture data when conventional (i.e. surgical or radiological) procedures are not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review of the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is still a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review.

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update).

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetes-related foot disease and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease. This document describes the 2023 update of these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research, to facilitate clear communication with people with diabetes-related foot disease and between professionals around the world.

IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes-related Foot Infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers. RESULTS: From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of ulcer healing, of lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue or bone infection. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, both a positive probe-to-bone test and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate are strongly associated with its presence. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, but advanced imaging methods help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localization of infection is uncertain. CONCLUSION: The results of this first reported systematic review on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.

Definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease.

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetic foot disease, and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease. This document describes these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research to facilitate clear communication between professionals.

The 'morning dip' in antimicrobial appropriateness: circumstances determining appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing.

Objectives: Quality of care has been shown to vary depending on the time of day or day of the week and depending on caregivers' gender and experience. We aimed to study how these factors influence quality of antimicrobial prescribing. Methods: Prospective point-prevalence surveys were performed to determine the association between the above-mentioned prescription factors and antimicrobial appropriateness. Surveys included cases of patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital with a prescribed systemic antimicrobial drug and its prescribers. The main outcome was appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions. A post hoc qualitative survey among hospital physicians asked physicians to reflect on the results. Results: The study included 351 antimicrobial prescriptions by 150 physicians prescribed for 276 patients. Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in the morning was significantly lower compared with the afternoon and evening/night [43% versus 68% versus 70%, crude OR afternoon versus morning = 3.00 (95% CI = 1.60-5.48), crude OR evening/night versus morning = 3.40 (95% CI = 1.64-6.69)]. First-year residents performed significantly worse than their more experienced colleagues [51% versus 69%, crude OR = 2.09 (95% CI = 1.26-3.38)]. Infectious disease expert consultation improved appropriateness [54% versus 81%, crude OR = 3.71 (95% CI = 2.05-6.23)]. No significant effects for gender or office hours versus non-office hours were found. Post hoc survey results suggest creating room to improve prescribing circumstances during mornings and for inexperienced physicians. Conclusions: Antimicrobial prescribing was less appropriate in the mornings and when prescribed by inexperienced physicians. Appropriateness may be increased by improving prescribing circumstances.

Assessment of appropriate antimicrobial prescribing: do experts agree?

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the validity and reliability of expert assessments of the quality of antimicrobial prescribing, despite their importance in antimicrobial stewardship. We investigated how infectious disease doctors' assessments compared with a reference standard (modal expert opinion) and with the assessments of their colleagues. METHODS: Twenty-four doctors specialized in infectious diseases or clinical microbiology (16 specialists and 8 residents) from five hospitals were asked to assess the appropriateness of antimicrobial agents prescribed for a broad spectrum of indications in 56 paper cases. They were instructed how to handle guideline applicability and deviations. We created a reference standard of antimicrobial appropriateness using the modal assessment of 16 specialists. We calculated criterion validity and interrater and intrarater overall and specific agreement with an index expert (senior infectious disease physician) and analysed the influence of doctor characteristics on validity. RESULTS: Specialists agreed with the reference standard in 80% of cases (range 75%-86%), with a sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 84%, respectively. This did not differ by clinical specialty, hospital or years of experience, and residents had similar results. Specialists agreed with the index expert in 76% of cases and the index expert agreed with his previous assessments in 71% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors specialized in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology assess the appropriateness of antimicrobials prescribed for a broad spectrum of indications with acceptable agreement and validity, regardless of their experience or hospital of employment. However, there is room for improvement, which merits attention in multidisciplinary discussions and education.

Effect of surgical decompression of nerves in the lower extremity in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy on stability: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of decompression of nerves in the lower extremity in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy on static balance using a sensitive pressure mat system. DESIGN: Non-blinded randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single center study performed at the University Medical Center Utrecht between 2010-2013. SUBJECTS: Patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy assessed with the Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom score and Diabetic Neuropathy Examination between 18-90 years. Exclusion criteria were: physical problems leading to instability, BMI>35 kg/m2, ankle fractures in history, amputations proximal to the tarsometatarsal joints, active foot ulcer(s), severe occlusive peripheral vascular diseases. INTERVENTION: Unilateral surgical nerve decompression at four sites in the lower extremity, the contralateral limb was used as control (within-patient comparison), with one year follow-up. MAIN MEASURES: Preoperatively and 6 and 12 months postoperatively, weight bearing and five variables of sway of the center of pressure were measured with a pressure mat with eyes open and eyes closed. T-test was used for evaluation of postoperative results. RESULTS: Thirty-nine Patients met inclusion criteria and were enrolled for stability testing. Postoperatively no significant differences for sway variables and weight bearing were seen compared to preoperatively measurements. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that surgical decompression of nerves of the lower extremity influences stability within one year after surgery in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy.

Antimicrobials and Non-Healing Wounds. Evidence, controversies and suggestions-key messages.

This article constitutes an extraction of key messages originally presented in the Document: Antimicrobials and Non-Healing Wounds. Evidence, controversies and suggestions written by the European Wound Management Association (EWMA), and originally published by the Journal of Wound Care in 2013. All sections are shortened and some not included. For further details please refer to in the original document which can be downloaded via www.ewma.org .

Characteristics and Outcomes of Occult Infections in Presumed Aseptic Nonunions: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) the rate of positive cultures in presumed aseptic nonunions, (2) the rate and microbial spectrum of positive cultures that represented occult infection, and (3) rates of nonunion healing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients with a presumed aseptic nonunion treated with single-stage revision between 2002 and 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: The rate of positive cultures compared for 2 protocols: old: 1-2 samples cultured 7 days versus new: 5 samples cultured 14 days. The rate of positive cultures meeting occult infection criteria with the new protocol (≥2 samples with phenotypically indistinguishable microorganisms, or ≥1 sample with a high virulent microorganism). Nonunion healing rates between protocols and between groups based on culture results with the new protocol. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients were included. The rate of positive cultures was 14% (n = 15/105) with the old protocol and 51% (n = 38/74) with the new protocol (P < 0.001). With the new protocol, the rate of positive cultures meeting occult infection criteria was 19% (n = 14/74), and coagulase-negative staphylococci (48%) and Cutibacterium acnes (38%) were the most common microorganisms. Nonunion healing rates after the primary revision did not differ between protocols (old: 82% vs. new: 86%, P = 0.41) and groups based on culture result (sterile: 86% vs. occultly infected: 93%, P = 0.66). The final overall nonunion healing rate was 97%. CONCLUSIONS: Occult infections were identified in 1 in 5 presumed aseptic nonunions using a standardized protocol with 5 intraoperative samples cultured 14 days and were predominantly caused by slow growing, gram-positive microorganisms. The local spectrum and antimicrobial sensitivity of occult infections should be considered when developing empiric antimicrobial protocols. Patients with presumed aseptic nonunions can expect high healing rates, regardless of the culture result. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Assessing the HIV care continuum among transgender women during 11 years of follow-up: results from the Netherlands' ATHENA observational cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Transgender women are at increased risk of acquiring HIV. Earlier studies reported lower retention in HIV care, antiretroviral therapy uptake, adherence and viral suppression. We assessed the stages of the HIV care continuum of transgender women in the Netherlands over an 11-year period. In addition, we assessed new HIV diagnoses and late presentation, as well as disengagement from care, between 2011 and 2021. METHODS: Using data from the Dutch national ATHENA cohort, we separately assessed viral suppression, as well as time to achieving viral suppression, among transgender women for each year between 2011 and 2021. We also assessed trends in new HIV diagnoses and late presentation (CD4 count of <350 cells/µl and/or AIDS at diagnosis), and disengagement from care. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2021, a total of 260 transgender women attended at least one HIV clinical visit. Across all years, <90% of transgender women were virally suppressed (207/239 [87%] in 2021). The number of new HIV diagnoses fluctuated for transgender women (ptrend = 0.053) and late presentation was common (ranging between 10% and 67% of new HIV diagnoses). Of the 260 transgender women, 26 (10%) disengaged from care between 2011 and 2021 (incidence rate = 1.10 per 100 person-years, 95% confidence interval = 0.75-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2011 and 2021, less than 90% of transgender women linked to HIV care were virally suppressed. Late presentation at the time of diagnosis and disengagement from care were common. Efforts are needed to identify barriers to early HIV diagnosis and to optimize the different steps across the care continuum for transgender women.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies Assessing Interventions for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes affects 537 million people globally, with 34% expected to develop foot ulceration in their lifetime. Diabetes-related foot ulceration causes strain on health care systems worldwide, necessitating provision of high-quality evidence to guide their management. Given heterogeneity of reported outcomes, a core outcome set (COS) was developed to standardize outcome measures in studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The COS was developed using Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. A systematic review and patient interviews generated a long list of outcomes that were rated by patients and experts using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1 [not important] to 9 [critical]) in the first round of the Delphi survey. Based on predefined criteria, outcomes without consensus were reprioritized in a second Delphi round. Critical outcomes and those without consensus after two Delphi rounds were discussed in the consensus meeting where the COS was ratified. RESULTS: The systematic review and patient interviews generated 103 candidate outcomes. The two consecutive Delphi rounds were completed by 336 and 176 respondents, resulting in an overall second round response rate of 52%. Of 37 outcomes discussed in the consensus meeting (22 critical and 15 without consensus after the second round), 8 formed the COS: wound healing, time to healing, new/recurrent ulceration, infection, major amputation, minor amputation, health-related quality of life, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed COS for studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration was developed using COMET methodology. Its adoption by the research community will facilitate assessment of comparative effectiveness of current and evolving interventions.

Prosthetic joint-associated infections treated with DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention): analysis of risk factors and local antibiotic carriers in 91 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For prosthetic joint-associated infection (PJI), a regimen of debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis (DAIR) is generally accepted for acute infections. Various risk factors associated with treatment success have been described. The use of local antibiotic carriers (beads and sponges) is relatively unknown. We retrospectively analyzed risk factors in a cohort of patients from 3 hospitals, treated with DAIR for PJI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 91 patients treated with DAIR for hip or knee PJI in 3 Dutch centers between 2004 and 2009 were retrospectively evaluated. The mean follow-up was 3 years. Treatment success was defined as absence of infection after 2 years, with retention of the prosthesis and without the use of suppressive antibiotics. RESULTS: 60 patients (66%) were free of infection at follow-up. Factors associated with treatment failure were: a history of rheumatoid arthritis, late infection (> 2 years after arthroplasty), ESR at presentation above 60 mm/h, and infection caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Symptom duration of less than 1 week was associated with treatment success. The use of gentamicin sponges was statistically significantly higher in the success group, and the use of beads was higher in the failure group in the univariate analysis, but these differences did not reach significance in the logistic regression analysis. Less surgical procedures were performed in the group treated with sponges than in the group treated with beads. INTERPRETATION: In the presence of rheumatoid arthritis, duration of symptoms of more than 1 week, ESR above 60 mm/h, late infection (> 2 years after arthroplasty), and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus PJI, the chances of successful DAIR treatment decrease, and other treatment methods should be considered.

An integrated personalized assistive devices approach to reduce the risk of foot ulcer recurrence in diabetes (DIASSIST): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes can increase quality of life and reduce costs. Despite the availability of various interventions to prevent foot ulcers, recurrence rates remain high. We hypothesize that a multimodal treatment approach incorporating various footwear, self-management, and education interventions that matches an individual person's needs can reduce the risk of ulcer recurrence with beneficial cost-utility. The aim of this study is to assess the effect on foot ulcer recurrence, footwear adherence, and cost-utility of an integrated personalized assistive devices approach in high-risk people with diabetes. METHODS: In a parallel-group multicenter randomized controlled trial, 126 adult participants with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2, loss of protective sensation based on the presence of peripheral neuropathy, a healed plantar foot ulcer in the preceding 4 years, and possession of any type of custom-made footwear will be included. Participants will be randomly assigned to either enhanced therapy or usual care. Enhanced therapy consists of usual care and additionally a personalized treatment approach including pressure-optimized custom-made footwear, pressure-optimized custom-made footwear for indoor use, at-home daily foot temperature monitoring, and structured education, which includes motivational interviewing and personalized feedback on adherence and self-care. Participants will be followed for 12 months. Assessments include barefoot and in-shoe plantar pressure measurements; questionnaires concerning quality of life, costs, disease, and self-care knowledge; physical activity and footwear use monitoring; and clinical monitoring for foot ulcer outcomes. The study is powered for 3 primary outcomes: foot ulcer recurrence, footwear adherence, and cost-utility, the primary clinical, patient-related, and health-economic outcome respectively. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to integrate multiple interventions for ulcer prevention into a personalized state-of-the-art treatment approach and assess their combined efficacy in a randomized controlled trial in people with diabetes at high ulcer risk. Proven effectiveness, usability, and cost-utility will facilitate implementation in healthcare, improve the quality of life of high-risk people with diabetes, and reduce treatment costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05236660. Registered on 11 February 2022.