The infected diabetic foot: Modulation of traditional biomarkers for osteomyelitis diagnosis in the setting of diabetic foot infection and renal impairment.

The objective of this paper was to investigate erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and c-reactive protein (CRP) in diagnosing pedal osteomyelitis (OM) in patients with and without diabetes, and with and without severe renal impairment (SRI). This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate and severe foot infections. We evaluated three groups: Subjects without diabetes (NDM), subjects with diabetes and without severe renal insufficiency (DM-NSRI), and patients with diabetes and SRI (DM-SRI). SRI was defined as eGFR <30. We evaluated area under the curve (AUC), cutoff point, sensitivity and specificity to characterize the accuracy of ESR and CRP to diagnose OM. A total of 408 patients were included in the analysis. ROC analysis in the NDM group revealed the AUC for ESR was 0.62, with a cutoff value of 46 mm/h (sensitivity, 49.0%; specificity, 76.0%). DM-NSRI subjects showed the AUC for ESR was 0.70 with the cutoff value of 61 mm/h (sensitivity, 68.9%; specificity 61.8%). In DM-SRI, the AUC for ESR was 0.67, with a cutoff value of 119 mm/h (sensitivity, 46.4%; specificity, 82.40%). In the NDM group, the AUC for CRP was 0.55, with a cutoff value of 6.4 mg/dL (sensitivity, 31.3%; specificity, 84.0%). For DM-NSRI, the AUC for CRP was 0.70, with a cutoff value of 8 mg/dL (sensitivity, 49.2%; specificity, 80.6%). In DM-SRI, the AUC for CRP was 0.62, with a cutoff value of 7 mg/dL (sensitivity, 57.1%; specificity, 67.7%). While CRP demonstrated relatively consistent utility, ESR's diagnostic cutoff points diverged significantly. These results highlight the necessity of considering patient-specific factors when interpreting ESR results in the context of OM diagnosis.

The infected diabetes-related foot: Comparison of erythrocyte sedementation rate/albumin and C-reactive protein/albumin ratios with erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein to differentiate bone and soft tissue infections.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of C-reactive protein (CRP)/albumin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)/albumin ratio, ESR, CRP and albumin to differentiate bone and soft tissue infection in persons with diabetes. We retrospectively evaluated 242 individuals admitted to hospital with diabetes-related foot infections (DFI). We categorised DFI cases as either bone (OM) or soft tissue infection based on bone culture and/or histology. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CRP, ESR, albumin, CRP/albumin and ESR/albumin as biomarkers to diagnose OM in persons with diabetes. The median age was 53 years (74% male). There were 224 diabetes-related patients of which 125 had been diagnosed with osteomyelitis. The ESR/albumin and CRP/albumin ratios cut-points were >17.84 and >1.83, respectively. ESR/albumin and CRP/albumin ratios had similar diagnostic parameters: AUC (0.71, 0.71), sensitivity (70.0%, 57.0%), specificity (62.0%, 75.0%), positive predictive value (67.0%, 71.0%) and negative predictive value (66.0% and 71.0%). In contrast diagnostic efficiency of CRP and ESR were AUC 0.71 and 0.71, sensitivity (45.6%, 71.2%), specificity (85.5%, 60.7%), positive predictive value (70.0%, 65.9%) and negative predictive value (59.5%, 66.4%), respectively. When comparing area under the curves, the results showed that ESR/albumin was not significantly different to ESR alone (Delong test pvs ESR >0.1). Similarly, CRP/albumin was not significantly different to CRP alone (Delong test pvs CRP >0.1). In conclusion, ESR/albumin and CRP/albumin ratios provided comparable results as using ESR and CRP alone.

Are We Misdiagnosing Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis? Is the Gold Standard Gold?

To compare the incidence of osteomyelitis based on different operational definitions using the gold standard of bone biopsy, we prospectively enrolled 35 consecutive patients who met the criteria of ≥21 years of age and a moderate or severe infection based on the Infectious Diseases Society of America classification. Bone samples were obtained from all patients by percutaneous bone biopsy or intraoperative culture if the patient required surgery. Bone samples were analyzed for conventional culture, histology, and 16S ribosomal RNA genetic sequencing. We evaluated 5 definitions for osteomyelitis: 1) traditional culture, 2) histology, 3) genetic sequencing, 4) traditional culture and histology, and 5) genetic sequencing and histology. There was variability in the incidence of osteomyelitis based on the diagnostic criteria. Traditional cultures identified more cases of osteomyelitis than histology (68.6% versus 45.7%, p = .06, odds ratio [OR] 2.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 to 6.87), but the difference was not significant. In every case that histology reported osteomyelitis, bone culture was positive using traditional culture or genetic sequencing. The 16S ribosomal RNA testing identified significantly more cases of osteomyelitis compared with histology (82.9% versus 45.7%, p = .002, OR 5.74, 95% CI 1.91 to 17.28) and compared with traditional cultures but not significantly (82.9% versus 68.6%, p = .17, OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.87). When both histology and traditional culture (68.6%) or histology and genetic sequencing cultures (82.9%) were used to define osteomyelitis, the incidence of osteomyelitis did not change. There is variability in the incidence of osteomyelitis based on how the gold standard of bone biopsy is defined in diabetic foot infections.

Gabapentin as an Adjunct to Standard Postoperative Pain Management Protocol in Lower Extremity Surgery.

Postoperative pain is a problem that plagues physicians and has since the dawn of the surgical arts. Many interventions are available and used as the standard such as preoperative local anesthetic blocks, opiates, both oral and intravenous, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Although the temptation often exists to increase the postoperative opiate dose, opiate abuse is an increasing problem. This abuse has fueled the search for nonopiate pain adjuncts. Gabapentinoids have been shown to both decrease postoperative pain and, secondarily, decrease opiate dependence. This is a growing field in medical research, although it is relatively lacking in the specialty of lower extremity orthopedic surgery. A PubMed query was performed for related articles, which found only 8 related to lower extremity orthopedic surgery, and of these, none addressed the foot or ankle. Studies involving chronic pain, nonorthopedic surgery, orthopedic procedures proximal to and including the hip, studies involving only pregabalin, and studies regarding cancer pain were excluded. The results from our literature review are encouraging regarding the addition of gabapentin as a regular, perioperative adjunctive pain medication because all studied reported data evaluating preoperative administration have shown a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pain and opiate consumption.

Medical mythology, misconceptions, and misinformation: does iodine impede wound healing?

INTRODUCTION: PI has been shown to be effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria and to be cytotoxic to a variety of cell types. Such findings led to the widespread belief that PI interferes with wound healing. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews laboratory studies, animal wound studies, and clinical studies that examine the efficacy and safety of iodine-based wound products in wound healing. METHODS: The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases without time restrictions, and 62 articles were selected for complete evaluation. Fourteen RCTs and 5 comparative studies that evaluated PI and 15 RCTs that evaluated CI were included. RESULTS: In 63% (n = 12) of the PI studies, there was no difference between PI and controls and in 5% (n = 1) PI performed significantly better than the comparator. In 31% (n = 6), outcomes were better with controls than with PI. In the RCTs on CI, 64% (n = 9) of the studies found no difference between CI and controls. Thirty-five percent (n = 5) showed significantly positive influence of CI compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Both CI and PI appear to be safe, with no evidence that these products impede wound healing, are associated with more infections, or require more amputations compared with other modalities. PI can effectively be used for short periods of time, and CI is an effective wound care modality for chronic wounds.