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 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.

Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

Bone involvement during an infection of the diabetic foot represents a serious complication associated with a high risk of amputation, prolonged antibiotic treatment and hospitalization. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFOs) require a multidisciplinary approach given the usual complexity of these situations. DFO should be suspected in most cases especially in the most severe forms of soft tissue diabetic foot infections (DFIs) where the prevalence of bone infection may be up to 60%. Suspicion is based on clinical signs in particular a positive probe-to-bone (PTB) test, elevated inflammatory biomarkers especially erythrocyte sedimentation rate and abnormal imaging assessment using plain X-ray as a first-line choice. The combination of PTB test with plain X-ray has proven effective in the diagnosis of DFO. The confirmation (definite) diagnosis of DFO is based on the results of a bone sample examination obtained by either surgical or percutaneous biopsy. Sophisticated imaging examinations such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging techniques are useful where doubt persists after first-line imaging assessment. These techniques may also help localize the bone infection site and increase the diagnostic performance of percutaneous bone biopsy. The quality of the microbiological documentation of DFO is likely to improve the adequacy of the antimicrobial therapy especially when medical (ie, no surgical resection of the infected bone tissues) is considered. The use of new (molecular) techniques for the identification of the bone pathogens have not yet proven superiority on classic cultural techniques for the management of such patients.

Update on the Role of Infection and Biofilms in Wound Healing: Pathophysiology and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds, and among these infected diabetic foot ulcers, are a worldwide problem. The poor treatment outcomes result in high healthcare costs, amputations, a decreased quality of life, and an increased mortality. These outcomes are influenced by several factors, including biofilm formation. A biofilm consists of pathogenic bacteria that are encased in an exopolysaccharide layer and communicate through secretion of signaling molecules. Bacteria that live in a biofilm are refractory to host responses and treatment. METHODS: We performed a nonsystematic review of the currently published to-date medical biofilm literature. The review summarizes the evidence of biofilm in chronic wounds, the role of biofilm in wound healing, detection of biofilm, and available antibiofilm treatments. Articles containing basic science and clinical research, as well as systematic reviews, are described and evaluated. The articles have variable levels of evidence. All articles have been peer reviewed and meet the standards of evidence-based medicine. RESULTS: Both animal and human studies have identified biofilm in chronic wounds and have suggested that healing might be influenced by its presence. A promising development in biofilm detection is rapid molecular diagnostics combined with direct microscopy. This technique, rather than classic culture, might support individualized treatment in the near future. A wide range of treatments for chronic wounds also influence biofilm formation. Several agents that specifically target biofilm are currently being researched. CONCLUSIONS: Biofilm formation has a substantial role in chronic wounds. Several diagnostic and therapeutic methods against biofilm are currently being developed.