Does complete resection of infected bone improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis?

The objective of the study was to compare outcomes in patients with complete surgical resection versus partial resection of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (OM). A post hoc analysis of 171 patients with OM was performed using data from two randomized clinical trials. OM was confirmed with bone culture or histopathology. Surgical culture specimens were obtained from resected bone and sent for histopathology and microbiology. Residual osteomyelitis (RO) was defined as a positive resected margin on culture or histopathology. No residual osteomyelitis (NRO) was defined as no growth from bone culture and no histopathological inflammation in the biopsy of the resection margin. Data from the 12-month follow-up were used to determine clinical outcomes. During the index hospitalization, NRO patients had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 21.0, 13.0-38.0 vs. RO 37.0, 20.8-50.0, p <0.01) and more amputations than patients with RO (NRO 89.9% vs. RO 60.9%, p <0.01). During the 12-month follow-up, patients with NRO also had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 42, 21.0-66.5 vs. RO 50.5, 35.0-75.0, p = 0.02). During the 12-month follow-up, there was no difference in ulceration at the same site (NRO 3.7%, RO 4.3% p = 0.85), hospitalization (NRO 32.6%, RO 34.8%, p = 0.76), total re-infections (NRO 25.3%, RO 29.3%, p = 0.56), re-infection with osteomyelitis (NRO 13.3% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.36), amputation (NRO 8.8%, RO 5.4%, p = 0.86) and time to wound healing in days (NRO 94, 41.0-365 vs. RO 106, 42.8-365, p = 0.77). Successful treatment of osteomyelitis was achieved by 86.7% and 86.5% of patients. During the index hospitalization, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had more amputations and were treated with antibiotics for a shorter duration. During the 12-month follow-up, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had shorter durations of antibiotics. There were no differences in re-infection, amputation, re-ulceration or hospitalization. Level of evidence: 1.

Residual diabetic foot osteomyelitis after surgery leads to poor clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes in patients with and without residual osteomyelitis (ROM) after surgical bone resection for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). We completed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase using keywords DFO, Residual OM (ROM), and positive bone margins. The study outcomes included wound healing, antibiotic duration, amputation, and re-infection. Five hundred and thirty patients were included in the analysis; 319 had no residual osteomyelitis (NROM), and 211 had ROM. There was not a significant difference in the proportion of wounds that healed 0.6 (p = 0.1, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] 0.3-1.3). The risk of infection was 2.0 times higher (OR = 2.0, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.1-3.4), and the risk of amputation was 4.3 times higher (OR = 4.3, p = 0.0001, 95% CI 2.4-7.6) in patients with ROM. Patients with ROM received antibiotics significantly longer. The mean difference was 16.3 days (p = 0.02, 95% CI 11.1-21.1).

The Role of Intravascular Ultrasound in Limb Salvage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review the current literature of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in real world cohorts inclusive of chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients and compare the outcomes to patients imaged by angiography alone. METHODS: The systematic review was registered in Research Registry. A literature search was performed across 4 databases: PubMed, Medline/Embase, Cochrane Review, and Web of Science for eligible comparative studies. The primary outcomes examined were clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), amputation (including minor below the ankle and major above the ankle), all-cause mortality, limb salvage and mean balloon dilation. A random effects model was used when pooling outcomes to account for heterogeneity. Publication bias was determined using eggers test and illustrated on a funnel plot. MAIN FINDINGS: Six studies were included in this review, with a total of 1883 subjects with Rutherford 1-6. Among the 1883 subjects, 940 had Rutherford 4-6. IVUS was used in 1294 subjects and angiography alone was used in 589 subjects. Pooled analysis determined no significant association in IVUS + angiography with CD-TLR (O.R = 1.43 [CI: 0.80, 2.58]), all-cause amputation (O.R = 0.63 [CI: 0.34, 1.17]), and all-cause mortality (O.R = 0.63 [CI: 0.34, 1.17]). Sub analysis of subjects with CLTI, Rutherford classes 4-6 showed an association between IVUS + angiography use with limb salvage at 1 year, O.R = 2.22 [1.24, 3.97]. CONCLUSION: The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone showed larger reference vessel diameter in both all-inclusive Rutherford classifications and the CLTI subset. The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone showed no difference in CD-TLR at 12 months, lower extremity amputation, and all-cause mortality for Rutherford 1-6. The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone in the CLTI subset analysis improved limb salvage.

Clinical outcomes in people with diabetes-related foot infections: Analysis from a limb preservation service infection database.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot infections are common and represent a significant clinical challenge. There are scant data about outcomes from large cohorts. The purpose of this study was to report clinical outcomes from a large cohort of people with diabetes-related foot infections. METHODS: A tertiary referral hospital limb preservation service database was established in 2018, and all new episodes of foot infections were captured prospectively using an electronic database (REDCap). People with foot infections between January 2018 and May 2023, for whom complete data were available on infection episodes, were included. Infection outcomes were compared between skin and soft tissue infections (SST-DFI) and osteomyelitis (OM) using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Data extraction identified 647 complete DFI episodes in 397 patients. The data set was divided into two cohorts identifying each infection episode and its severity as either SST-DFI (N = 326, 50%) or OM (N = 321, 50%). Most infection presentations were classified as being moderate (PEDIS 3 = 327, 51%), with 36% mild (PEDIS 2 = 239) and 13% severe (PEDIS 4 = 81). Infection resolution occurred in 69% (n = 449) of episodes with failure in 31% (n = 198). Infection failures were more common with OM than SST-DFI (OM = 140, 71% vs. SST-DFI = 58, 29%, p < 0.00001). In patients with SST-DFI a greater number of infection failures were observed in the presence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) compared to the patients without PAD (failure occurred in 30% (31/103) of episodes with PAD and 12% (27/223) of episodes without PAD; p < 0.001). In contrast, the number of observed infection failures in OM episodes were similar in patients with and without PAD (failure occurred in 45% (57/128) of episodes with PAD and 55% (83/193) of episodes without PAD; p = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important epidemiological data on the risk of poor outcomes for DFI and factors associated with poor outcomes in an Australian setting. It highlights the association of PAD and treatment failure, reinforcing the need for early intervention to improve PAD in patients with DFI. Future randomised trials should assess the benefits of revascularisation and surgery in people with DFI and particularly those with OM where outcomes are worse.

Update of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of biomarker for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Medline for studies who report serological markers and DFO before December 2022. Studies must include at least one of the following diagnostic parameters for biomarkers: area under the curve, sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. Two authors evaluated quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. We included 19 papers. In this systematic review, there were 2854 subjects with 2134 (74.8%) of those patients being included in the meta-analysis. The most common biomarkers were erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT). A meta-analysis was then performed where data were evaluated with Forrest plots and receiver operating characteristic curves. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.72 and 0.75 for PCT, 0.72 and 0.76 for CRP and 0.70 and 0.77 for ESR. Pooled area under the curves for ESR, CRP and PCT were 0.83, 0.77 and 0.71, respectfully. Average diagnostic odds ratios were 16.1 (range 3.6-55.4), 14.3 (range 2.7-48.7) and 6.7 (range 3.6-10.4) for ESR, CRP and PCT, respectfully. None of the biomarkers we evaluated could be rated as 'outstanding' to diagnose osteomyelitis. Based on the areas under the curve, ESR is an 'excellent' biomarker to detect osteomyelitis, and CRP and PCT are 'acceptable' biomarkers to diagnose osteomyelitis. Diagnostic odds ratios indicate that ESR, CRP and PCT are 'good' or 'very good' tools to identify osteomyelitis.

Outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation of calcaneus fractures: A database study comparing patients with and without diabetes.

Treatment of calcaneal fractures in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is challenging. The purpose of this study was to compare post-operative outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for calcaneus fracture in patients with complicated DM, uncomplicated DM, and patients without DM. A commercially available de-identified database was queried for all calcaneus fracture diagnoses undergoing ORIF from 2010 to 2021. The patients were separated into three groups for analysis: patients without DM (10,951, 82.6%), uncomplicated DM (1,500, 11.3%) and complicated DM (802, 6.1%). At 1 year, post-operative adverse events were assessed among the three groups. The odds of adverse event(s) for each group were compared between the three groups with and without characteristic matching. In the unmatched cohorts, patients with complicated DM, when compared with patients without DM and patients with uncomplicated DM, had significantly higher rates of all adverse events with exception of DVT. Rates of CNA were significantly higher in patients with complicated DM compared with no DM (OR 107.7 (CI 24.83-467.6) p < 0.0001) and uncomplicated DM (OR 44.26 (CI 3.86-507.93) p = 0.0002). After matching, non-union, AKI, sepsis, surgical site infection, and wound disruption were higher in patients with complicated DM compared with patients without DM. There were no significant differences in the three groups with regard to reoperation, DVT, MI, pneumonia, or below the knee amputation. Patients with DM who underwent ORIF for calcaneus fracture experienced higher rates of post-operative adverse events compared with those patients without DM.

MRSA infection, re-infection and clinical outcomes in diabetic foot infections.

The aim was to investigate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) incidence, conversion and outcomes in diabetic foot infections (DFIs). This is a pooled patient-level analysis of combined data sets from two randomised clinical trials including 219 patients admitted to the hospital with moderate or severe DFIs. Intraoperative bone and tissue cultures identified bacterial pathogens. We identified pathogens at index infections and subsequent re-infections. We identified MRSA conversion (MSSA to MRSA) in re-infections. MRSA incidence in index infections was 10.5%, with no difference between soft tissue infections (STIs) and osteomyelitis (OM). MRSA conversion occurred in 7.7% of the re-infections in patients who initially had MSSA in their cultures. Patients with re-infection were 2.2 times more likely to have MRSA compared to the first infection (10.5% vs. 25.8%, relative risk [RR] = 2.2, p = 0.001). Patients with MRSA had longer antibiotic treatment during the 1-year follow-up, compared to other pathogens (other 49.8 ± 34.7 days, MRSA 65.3 ± 41.5 days, p = 0.04). Furthermore, there were no differences in healing, time to heal, length of stay, re-infection, amputation, re-ulceration, re-admission, surgery after discharge and amputation after discharge compared to other pathogens. The incidence of MRSA at the index was 10.5% with no difference in STI and OM. MRSA incidence was 25.8% in re-infections. The RR of having MRSA was 2.2 times higher in re-infections. Patients with MRSA used more antibiotics during the 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, there were no differences in clinical outcomes compared to other bacterial pathogens.

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.

Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2023 update).

AIMS: This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guideline on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes, which updates the 2019 guideline. This guideline is targeted at clinicians and other healthcare professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the PICO format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical-scientific literature including, where appropriate, meta-analyses, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where (sufficient) evidence was not available, and a weighing of the desirable and undesirable effects of an intervention, as well as patient preferences, costs, equity, feasibility and applicability. RESULTS: We recommend screening a person with diabetes at very low risk of foot ulceration annually for the loss of protective sensation and peripheral artery disease, and screening persons at higher risk at higher frequencies for additional risk factors. For preventing a foot ulcer, educate persons at-risk about appropriate foot self-care, educate not to walk without suitable foot protection, and treat any pre-ulcerative lesion on the foot. Educate moderate-to-high risk people with diabetes to wear properly fitting, accommodative, therapeutic footwear, and consider coaching them to monitor foot skin temperature. Prescribe therapeutic footwear that has a demonstrated plantar pressure relieving effect during walking, to help prevent plantar foot ulcer recurrence. Consider advising people at low-to-moderate risk to undertake a, preferably supervised, foot-ankle exercise programme to reduce ulcer risk factors, and consider communicating that a total increase in weight-bearing activity of 1000 steps/day is likely safe with regards to risk of ulceration. In people with non-rigid hammertoe with pre-ulcerative lesion, consider flexor tendon tenotomy. We suggest not to use a nerve decompression procedure to help prevent foot ulcers. Provide integrated foot care for moderate-to-high-risk people with diabetes to help prevent (recurrence of) ulceration. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should help healthcare professionals to provide better care for persons with diabetes at risk of foot ulceration, to increase the number of ulcer-free days and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Foot abscesses with no accompanying wound: clinical presentation and pathogens.

INTRODUCTION: Acute bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissue are common and often pose serious complications, most commonly caused by Streptococcus species and Staphylococcus aureus. OBJECTIVE: The authors report clinical presentation and pathogens in patients with a foot abscess and no wound. METHODS: The authors retrospectively evaluated the demographics, clinical presentation, and microbiology from 20 patient records. RESULTS: Twenty patients were identified. Fifteen were male (75%), and 10 patients (50%) had DM. Patients presented to the hospital 7.8 ± 4.8 days after onset of symptoms and underwent surgery 2.0 ± 0.9 days from admission. Patients underwent 2.4 ± 1.0 surgeries while admitted. Patients with DM presented with significantly higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate than patients without DM (66.6 ± 46.1 vs 43.3 ± 26.2; P = .02). There were no polymicrobial infections based on deep intraoperative tissue cultures. Seven patients had methicillin-sensitive S aureus (35%), 4 had Streptococcus agalactiae (20%), 3 had methicillin-resistant S aureus (15%), 1 had Streptococcus pyogenes (5%), 1 had Escherichia coli (5%), 1 had Streptococcus dysgalactiae (5%), 1 had an unidentified Streptococcus species (5%), and 2 had no growth (10%). CONCLUSION: Patients with foot abscess and no wounds had single-pathogen infections, predominantly Staphylococcus and Streptococcus.

Does antibiotic treatment before bone biopsy affect the identification of bacterial pathogens from bone culture?

There is a common belief and practice that any exposure to oral or parenteral antibiotics prior to bone biopsy makes culture results unreliable. The aim of this article was to evaluate the effect of antibiotic exposure on bacterial yield in DFO microbiology specimens. The authors retrospectively evaluated 114 patients with DFO confirmed by histology. The primary outcome measurement was the proportion of bone biopsies with positive bacterial cultures. There was no statistically significant difference in culture yield in patients who received antibiotics (77.9%) and patients who did not (85.7%, P = .58). This study demonstrates that there were no differences in bacterial yield whether antibiotics were withheld or administered before bone cultures were obtained. The duration of antibiotic use prior to bone biopsy did not change the bacterial yield.

Fractures and dislocations of the foot and ankle in people with diabetes: a literature review.

Diabetes (DM) increases fracture risk, and bone quality depends on type diabetes type, duration, and other comorbidities. Diabetes is associated with a 32% increased relative risk (RR) of total fractures and 24% increased RR of ankle fractures compared with patients without DM. Type 2 DM is associated with a 37% increased RR of foot fractures compared with patients without DM. The incidence of ankle fractures in the general population is 169/100,000 per year, while foot fractures occur less frequently, with an incidence of 142/100,000 per year. Biomechanical properties of bone are negatively impacted by stiff collagen, contributing to the increased risk of fragility fractures in patients with DM. Systemic elevation of proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα), interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß), and interleukin 6 (IL-6), impact bone healing in patients with DM. Fractures in patients with DM, can be associated with poorly regulated levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear transcription factor kappa-b ligand) leading to prolonged osteoclastogenesis, and net bone resorption. One of the most salient factors in treating fractures and dislocations of the foot and ankle is to recognize the difference between patients with uncomplicated and complicated DM. Complicated diabetes is defined as 'end organ damage', and for the purposes of this review, includes patients with neuropathy, peripheral artery disease (PAD) and/or chronic renal disease. Uncomplicated diabetes is not associated with 'end organ damage'. Foot and ankle fractures in patients with complicated DM pose challenges, and surgery is associated with increased risks of impaired wound healing, delayed fracture healing, malunion, infection, surgical site infection, and revision surgery. While patients with uncomplicated DM can be treated like patients without DM, patients with complicated DM require close follow-up and robust fixation methods should be considered to withstand the anticipated prolonged healing period. The aims of this review are as follows: (1) to review pertinent aspects of DM bone physiology and fracture healing, (2) to review the recent literature on treatment of foot and ankle fractures in patients with complicated DM, and (3) to provide treatment protocols based on the recent published evidence.

Ultraviolet-A Light and Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy to Accelerate Wound Healing and Reduce Bacterial Proliferation.

BACKGROUND: Ultraviolet (UV)-A therapy is a simple, inexpensive, and effective modality for wound healing, with tremendous potential to improve healing and reduce clinical infections in a number of clinical settings. To date, application of UV-A relies on bulky and hard-to-dose lamps that provide inconsistent therapy, thus making it difficult to apply therapy that is appropriate for the patient. METHODS: This study was designed to test the effectiveness of a novel wound therapy device that combines UV-A with traditional negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to promote wound healing. Furthermore, we tested the ability of fiberoptic UV-A delivery to inhibit bacterial proliferation. Finally, we assayed the level of DNA damage that results from UV-A as compared to established UV-C therapies. Wound healing studies were performed in a porcine model using an articulated therapy arm that allows for continued therapy administration over an extended time course. Negative-pressure wound therapy was administered alone or with UV-A fiberoptic therapy for 2 weeks. Dressings were changed twice a week, at which time wound area was assessed. RESULTS: Data demonstrate that UV-A with NPWT treatment of wounds results in greater healing than NPWT alone. Using the same therapy device, we demonstrate that exposure of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to fiberoptic UV-A results in decreased colony area and number of both bacterial strains. Finally, we show that UV-A induces minimal DNA damage in human fibroblasts and no more DNA damage in wound tissue as compare to intact skin. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that UV-A can decrease bacterial proliferation and promote wound healing when coupled with NPWT.

The Impact of Hospitalization for Diabetic Foot Infection on Health-Related Quality of Life: Utilizing PROMIS.

Diabetic foot infections (DFI) are an increasingly common cause of hospitalizations. Once hospitalized with DFI, many patients require some level of amputation, often undergoing multiple operations. With increasing importance on patient-centered metrics, self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) tools have been developed. This prospective cohort study aimed assessed the impact of DFI on HRQOL. Two hundred twenty-four patients completed the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) survey. Secondary outcomes using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measures survey were obtained and included in the analysis. The study group was comprised of hospitalized patients with DFIs (n = 120), and the control group was comprised of patients with diabetes who were evaluated for routine outpatient foot care (n = 104); diabetic foot screening, wound care, onychomycosis, and/or callosities. Using this cohort, a propensity score-matched sample of hospitalized patients with DFI (n = 35) and control group patients (n = 35) was created for comparative analysis. The 2-independent sample t test was used to test for group differences on each of the PROMIS subscale outcomes. Using PROMIS, we found that hospitalized patients with DFI reported significantly worse HRQOL in 6 of 7 subscales (physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social role, pain intensity; p value range: .0001-.02) compared to outpatients with diabetes evaluated for routine foot care. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups on sleep disturbance (p = .22). Patients hospitalized for DFI report lower HRQOL compared to patients with diabetes receiving routine outpatient foot care.

Are Surrogate Markers for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis Remission Reliable?

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate surrogate markers commonly used in the literature for diabetic foot osteomyelitis remission after initial treatment for diabetic foot infections (DFIs). METHODS: Thirty-five patients with DFIs were prospectively enrolled and followed for 12 months. Osteomyelitis was determined from bone culture and histologic analysis initially and for recurrence. Fisher exact and χ2 tests were used for dichotomous variables and Student t and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables (α = .05). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were diagnosed as having osteomyelitis and 11 as having soft-tissue infections. Four patients (16.7%) with osteomyelitis had reinfection based on bone biopsy. The success of osteomyelitis treatment varied based on the surrogate marker used to define remission: osteomyelitis infection (16.7%), failed wound healing (8.3%), reulceration (20.8%), readmission (16.7%), amputation (12.5%). There was no difference in outcomes among patients who were initially diagnosed as having osteomyelitis versus soft-tissue infections. There were no differences in osteomyelitis reinfection (16.7% versus 45.5%; P = .07), wounds that failed to heal (8.3% versus 9.1%; P = .94), reulceration (20.8% versus 27.3%; P = .67), readmission for DFIs at the same site (16.7% versus 36.4%; P = .20), amputation at the same site after discharge (12.5% versus 36.4%; P = .10). Osteomyelitis at the index site based on bone biopsy indicated that failed therapy was 16.7%. Indirect markers demonstrated a failure rate of 8.3% to 20.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Most osteomyelitis markers were similar to markers in soft-tissue infection. Commonly reported surrogate markers were not shown to be specific to identify patients who failed osteomyelitis treatment compared with patients with soft-tissue infections. Given this, these surrogate markers are not reliable for use in practice to identify osteomyelitis treatment failure.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: Imaging Accuracy in Biopsy-Proven Disease.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the recommended diagnostic imaging technique for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). The gold standard to diagnose osteomyelitis is bone biopsy with a positive culture and/or histopathology finding consistent with osteomyelitis. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of MRI readings in biopsy-proven diabetic foot osteomyelitis with a second read done by a blinded, expert musculoskeletal radiologist. A retrospective chart review of 166 patients who received a bone biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of a suspected DFO at a large county hospital between 2010 and 2014. A second, blinded musculoskeletal radiologist reviewed the images for accuracy, once the official reading was recorded. Imaging results were correlated with the final diagnosis of osteomyelitis determined by bone biopsy. In 17 of 58 patients (29.3%), the diagnosis of DFO by MRI was not confirmed by bone biopsy. There were 12 false positives and 5 false negatives. After the second expert read, there were 5 false positives and 4 false negatives. The overall accuracy was 84% for the second read. Our study demonstrated results comparable to the previously reported meta-analysis findings. There is a clear variation on the read of MRI that could lead to an incorrect diagnosis of DFO. An integrated approach with evaluation of clinical findings, communication with radiologist about the MRI results when indicated, and bone biopsy is warranted for accurate diagnosis management of DFO.

Increased Risk of Nonunion and Charcot Arthropathy After Ankle Fracture in People With Diabetes.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of complications after an ankle fracture in patients with and without diabetes and to evaluate risk factors for nonunion. We conducted a retrospective study of 439 patients with ankle fractures (31.7% had diabetes) and followed them for 1 year or until the fracture healed. The fracture severity and determination of nonunion and Charcot arthropathy were determined from independent evaluation of radiographs by 2 members of the research team. Nonunion was defined as a fracture that did not heal within 6 months of the fracture. The majority of patients were women (67% in each group). The risk of complications was significantly higher in patients with diabetes compared with those without diabetes. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for nonunion was 6.5 (3.4 to 12.8); for Charcot arthropathy, 7.6 (2.3 to 21.0); for wounds, 1.8 (1.1 to 2.9); for infection, 2.8 (1.4 to 5.7); and for amputation, 6.6 (0.98 to 80.0). In the logistical regression analysis, 6 factors were associated with fracture nonunion: dialysis (7.7; 1.7 to 35.2), diabetes (3.3; 1.5 to 7.4), fracture severity (bi- and trimalleolar fractures) (4.9; 1.4 to 18.0), beta blockers (2.5; 1.1 to 5.4), steroids (3.1; 1.2 to 7.7), and infection (3.7; 1.2 to 11.3). The results of the study demonstrate the increased risk of complications after an ankle fracture among patients with diabetes, dialysis, or open fractures and those using steroids and beta blockers. Further work is needed to identify areas for risk reduction.

Temperature- and Pressure-Regulating Insoles for Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) pose a major threat to the United States healthcare system as well as patients and their families. High ulcer recurrence rates indicate that existing preventive measures are not effective. A new generation of multimodal preventive devices may reduce ulceration and amputation rates. Because previous research has revealed that tissue maintained at cooler temperatures is more resistant to breaking down, the evaluated technology may prevent foot ulceration. The purpose of this study was to test previously designed Temperature and Pressure Monitoring and Regulating Insoles (TAPMARI) in diabetic neuropathic and healthy subjects. A cooling unit, a mini-water pump, a battery pack, and a microcontroller (or simply thermostat) were placed inside a box attached to the subjects' calf, which provided cooling inside the shoe. The microcontroller was set at 28°C. Eight subjects provided informed consent, 3 of whom had diabetic neuropathy. Subjects used the instrumented shoe on the right foot and the matching control shoe on the left and walked on a treadmill for 5 minutes at self-selected speeds. Baseline and postwalking thermographs were obtained with a thermal camera. At the 2-hour midpoint, subjects again walked on the treadmill for 5 minutes at self-selected speeds. Second baseline and postwalking thermographs were captured. Plantar pressure distributions were also quantified. The TAPMARI successfully regulated foot temperatures at or below the target temperature. The mean baseline temperature of the right (regulated) and left (control) feet were 28.1 ± 1.9°C (mean ± standard deviation) for all subjects. The mean temperatures at the end of the study were 25.9 ± 2.5°C (right) and 31.7 ± 1.6°C (left) in all subjects. In the diabetic neuropathy group, the final mean temperatures were 27.5 ± 2.4°C (right) and 31.6 ± 0.8°C (left), which indicated that the temperature goal was met inside the instrumented shoe. By regulating temperatures, TAPMARI may reduce the metabolic demands in the foot and prevent cell autolysis by eliminating the imbalance between oxygen demand and supply. This study warrants further development and testing of TAPMARI as well as investigating the clinical effectiveness in preventing DFUs.

Does negative pressure wound therapy with irrigation improve clinical outcomes? A randomized clinical trial in patients with diabetic foot infections.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) with and without irrigation with 0.1% polyhexanide-betaine. METHODS: We randomized 150 subjects in a 16-week RCT to compare healing in patients with diabetic foot infections. NPWT delivered at 125 mm Hg continuous pressure. NPWT-I were administered at 30 cc per hour. RESULTS: There were no differences clinical treatment or outcomes: wound area after surgery (18.5 ± 19.0 vs. 13.4 ± 11.1 cm2, p = 0.50), duration of antibiotics (39.7 ± 21.0 vs. 38.0 ± 24.6 days, p = 0.40), number of surgeries (2.3 ± 0.67 vs. 2.2 ± 0.59, p = 0.85), duration of NPWT (148.1 ± 170.4 vs. 114.5 ± 135.1 h, p = 0.06), healed wounds (58.7% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.86), time to healing (56.3 ± 31.7 vs. 50.7 ± 27.8, p = 0.53), length of stay (13.8 ± 6.4 vs. 14.5 ± 11.2 days, p = 0.42), re-infection (20.0% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.69, and re-hospitalization (17.3% vs. 18.7, p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of irrigation to NPWT did not change clinical outcomes in patients with diabetic foot infections. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02463487, ClinicalTrials.gov.

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.