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.

Individualised screening of diabetic foot: creation of a prediction model based on penalised regression and assessment of theoretical efficacy.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: A large proportion of people with diabetes do not receive proper foot screening due to insufficiencies in healthcare systems. Introducing an effective risk prediction model into the screening protocol would potentially reduce the required screening frequency for those considered at low risk for diabetic foot complications. The main aim of the study was to investigate the value of individualised risk assignment for foot complications for optimisation of screening. METHODS: From 2015 to 2020, 11,878 routine follow-up foot investigations were performed in the tertiary diabetes clinic. From these, 4282 screening investigations with complete data containing all of 18 designated variables collected at regular clinical and foot screening visits were selected for the study sample. Penalised logistic regression models for the prediction of loss of protective sensation (LOPS) and loss of peripheral pulses (LPP) were developed and evaluated. RESULTS: Using leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV), the penalised regression model showed an AUC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.82, 0.85) for prediction of LOPS and 0.80 (95% CI 0.78, 0.83) for prediction of LPP. Calibration analysis (based on LOOCV) presented consistent recall of probabilities, with a Brier score of 0.08 (intercept 0.01 [95% CI -0.09, 0.12], slope 1.00 [95% CI 0.92, 1.09]) for LOPS and a Brier score of 0.05 (intercept 0.01 [95% CI -0.12, 0.14], slope 1.09 [95% CI 0.95, 1.22]) for LPP. In a hypothetical follow-up period of 2 years, the regular screening interval was increased from 1 year to 2 years for individuals at low risk. In individuals with an International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) risk 0, we could show a 40.5% reduction in the absolute number of screening examinations (3614 instead of 6074 screenings) when a 10% risk cut-off was used and a 26.5% reduction (4463 instead of 6074 screenings) when the risk cut-off was set to 5%. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Enhancement of the protocol for diabetic foot screening by inclusion of a prediction model allows differentiation of individuals with diabetes based on the likelihood of complications. This could potentially reduce the number of screenings needed in those considered at low risk of diabetic foot complications. The proposed model requires further refinement and external validation, but it shows the potential for improving compliance with screening guidelines.

Possible Advantages of S53P4 Bioactive Glass in the Treatment of Septic Osteoarthritis of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint in the Diabetic Foot.

Biomechanically, the great toe with its metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint plays a key role in standing and walking, making the first MTP joint one of the main predilection sites for ulcer formation, and consequently for bone and joint infection and even amputation. If conservative treatment fails, the main goal of surgery is to remove all infected tissue and preserve the first ray. To improve surgical outcomes, development of new biomaterials like Bioactive Glass S53P4 has begun. Bioactive Glass is useful because of its antibacterial properties; furthermore, its osteostimulative and osteoconductive qualities make the bone substitute particularly suitable as a bone defect filler for the treatment of osteomyelitis. The aim of our retrospective observational study was to compare the outcomes following ulcerectomy with segmental resection of the infected joint and bone and temporary stabilization with an external fixator, both with and without added Bioactive Glass. A comparison of added Bioactive Glass with the traditional surgical treatment in septic osteoarthritis of the first MTP joint showed Bioactive Glass to be effective. During a one-year follow-up, patients with Bioactive Glass required no additional antibiotic therapy or surgical intervention. Bioactive Glass, when applied to the diabetic foot, showed itself to be a safe bone substitute biomaterial.

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.