Assessment and management of diabetes-related foot infection according to the new International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines 2023-Multidisciplinary grand rounds.

Diabetes-related foot disease is a serious and common complication for people with diabetes mellitus. The gold standard care for a person with diabetes-related foot disease is the involvement of a multidisciplinary foot team engaged in evidence-based care. To date, there are seven International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines published to assist healthcare providers in managing diabetes-related foot disease around the world. This review discusses the acute management of diabetes-related foot infection with insights from experts of various specialities (internal medicine, infectious disease, vascular surgery, radiology) with a discussion on the implementation of IWGDF guidelines in real life practice and the challenges that healthcare providers may face.

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.

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 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.

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.

Initial antibiotic therapy for postoperative moderate or severe diabetic foot infections: Broad versus narrow spectrum, empirical versus targeted.

AIM: To retrospectively evaluate clinical and microbiological outcomes after combined surgical and medical therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFIs), stratifying between the empirical versus the targeted nature, and between an empirical broad versus a narrow-spectrum, antibiotic therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the rate of ultimate therapeutic failures for each of three types of initial postoperative antibiotic therapy: adequate empirical therapy; culture-guided therapy; and empirical inadequate therapy with a switch to targeted treatment based on available microbiological results. RESULTS: We included data from 332 patients who underwent 716 DFI episodes of surgical debridement, including partial amputations. Clinical failure occurred in 40 of 194 (20.6%) episodes where adequate empirical therapy was given, in 77 of 291 (26.5%) episodes using culture-guided (and correct) therapy from the start, and in 73 of 231 (31.6%) episodes with switching from empirical inadequate therapy to culture-targeted therapy. Equally, a broad-spectrum antibiotic choice could not alter this failure risk. Group comparisons, Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses failed to show either statistical superiority or inferiority of any of the initial antibiotic strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the microbiological adequacy of the initial antibiotic regimen after (surgical) debridement for DFI did not alter therapeutic outcomes. We recommend that clinicians follow the stewardship approach of avoiding antibiotic de-escalation and start with a narrow-spectrum regimen based on the local epidemiology.

Muscle atrophy in diabetic patients with Charcot foot: a case-control study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the distribution and severity of muscle atrophy in diabetic patients with active Charcot foot (CF) compared to diabetic patients without CF. Furthermore, to correlate the muscle atrophy with severity of CF disease. MATERIAL/METHODS: In this retrospective study, MR images of 35 diabetic patients (21 male, median:62.1 years ± 9.9SD) with active CF were compared with an age- and gender-matched control group of diabetic patients without CF. Two readers evaluated fatty muscle infiltration (Goutallier-classification) in the mid- and hindfoot. Furthermore, muscle trophic (cross-sectional muscle area (CSA)), intramuscular edema (none/mild versus moderate/severe), and the severity of CF disease (Balgrist Score) were assessed. RESULTS: Interreader correlation for fatty infiltration was substantial to almost perfect (kappa-values:0.73-1.0). Frequency of fatty muscle infiltration was high in both groups (CF:97.1-100%; control:77.1-91.4%), but severe infiltration was significantly more frequent in CF patients (p-values: < 0.001-0.043). Muscle edema was also frequently seen in both groups, but significantly more often in the CF group (p-values: < 0.001-0.003). CSAs of hindfoot muscles were significantly smaller in the CF group. For the flexor digitorum brevis muscle, a cutoff value of 139 mm2 (sensitivity:62.9%; specificity:82.9%) in the hindfoot was found to differentiate between CF disease and the control group. No correlation was seen between fatty muscle infiltration and the Balgrist Score. CONCLUSION: Muscle atrophy and muscle edema are significantly more severe in diabetic patients with CF disease. Muscle atrophy does not correlate with the severity of active CF disease. A CSA < 139 mm2 of the flexor digitorum brevis muscle in the hindfoot may indicate CF disease.

Epidemiology and outcomes of bone and joint infections in solid organ transplant recipients.

Bone and joint infection (BJI) epidemiology and outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTr) remain largely unknown. We aim to describe BJI in a multi-center cohort of SOTr (Swiss Transplant Cohort Study). All consecutive SOTr with BJI (01.05.2008-31.12.2019) were included. A nested case-control study to identify risk factors for BJI was performed. Among 4482 patients, 61 SOTr with 82 BJI were included, at an incidence of 1.4% (95% CI 1.1-1.7), higher in heart and kidney-pancreas SOTr (Gray's test p < .01). Although BJI were predominately late events (median of 18.5 months post-SOT), most infections occurred during the first year post-transplant in thoracic SOTr. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis was the most frequent infection (38/82, 46.3%), followed by non-vertebral osteomyelitis (26/82, 31.7%). Pathogens included Gram-positive cocci (70/131, 53.4%), Gram-negative bacilli (34/131, 26.0%), and fungi (9/131, 6.9%). BJI predictors included male gender (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.26-6.89) and diabetes (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.34-6.56). Treatment failure was observed in 25.9% (21/81) patients and 1-year mortality post-BJI diagnosis was 14.8% (9/61). BJI remain a rare event in SOTr, associated with subtle clinical presentations, high morbidity and relapses, requiring additional studies in the future.

Moderate to Severe Soft Tissue Diabetic Foot Infections: A Randomized, Controlled, Pilot Trial of Post-debridement Antibiotic Treatment for 10 versus 20 days.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for soft-tissue infections of the diabetic foot remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: We determine if antibiotic therapy after debridement for a short (10 days), compared with a long (20 days), duration for soft-tissue infections of the diabetic foot results in similar rates of clinical remission and adverse events (AE). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal duration of systemic antibiotic therapy, after successful debridement, for soft tissue infections of diabetic patients is unknown. Because of the high recurrence risk, overuse is commonplace. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority pilot trial of cases of diabetic foot infection (excluding osteomyelitis) with the primary outcome of "clinical remission at 2-months follow-up". RESULTS: Among 66 enrolled episodes (17% females; median age 71 years), we randomized 35 to the 10-day arm and 31 to the 20-day arm. The median duration of the parenteral antibiotic therapy was 1 day, with the remainder given orally. In the intention-to-treat population, we achieved clinical remission in 27 (77%) patients in the 10-day arm compared to 22 (71%) in the 20-days arm ( P = 0.57). There were a similar proportion in each arm of AE (14/35 versus 11/31; P = 0.71), and remission in the per-protocol population (25/32 vs 18/27; P = 0.32). Overall, 8 soft tissue DFIs in the 10-day arm and 5 cases in the 20-day arm recurred as a new osteomyelitis [8/35 (23%) versus 5/31 (16%); P = 0.53]. Overall, the number of recurrences limited to the soft tissues was 4 (6%). By multivariate analysis, rates of remission (intention-to-treat population, hazard ratio 0.6, 95%CI 0.3-1.1; per-protocol population 0.8, 95%CI 0.4-1.5) and AE were not significantly different with a 10-day compared to 20-day course. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, controlled pilot trial, post-debridement antibiotic therapy for soft tissue DFI for 10 days gave similar (and non-inferior) rates of remission and AEs to 20 days. A larger confirmatory trial is under way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials NCT03615807.

Acne cream reduces the deep Cutibacterium acnes tissue load before elective open shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Cutibacterium acnes is the main pathogen in periprosthetic shoulder infections. In acne vulgaris therapy, benzoyl peroxide-miconazole nitrate cream effectively reduces the superficial C acnes burden of the skin. Its additional potential in the subcutaneous and capsular layers (eg, for prevention of future periprosthetic shoulder infections) is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a topical acne vulgaris cream (benzoyl peroxide-miconazole nitrate) to reduce subcutaneous and capsular C acnes in individuals with C acnes skin colonization undergoing open shoulder surgery. METHODS: A prospective randomized pilot trial was performed, allocating 60 adult patients (1:1) to either a 7-day preoperative application of a commercial acne cream (benzoyl peroxide-miconazole nitrate) on the preoperative skin (intervention group) or no cream (control group) from November 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. The superficial skin of the shoulder was sampled at enrollment and before incision, and deep subcutaneous and capsular shoulder samples were taken during surgery. RESULTS: Sixty patients (mean age, 59 years; 55% female patients) undergoing primary open shoulder surgery (17 Latarjet procedures and 43 arthroplasties) were included in the study. At baseline, both randomized groups showed the presence of C acnes on the skin at a rate of 60% (18 of 30 patients in intervention group and 19 of 30 patients in control group, P = .79). In patients with C acnes skin colonization, the intervention resulted in a significant reduction in the overall number of intraoperative samples with positive findings compared with the control group (8 of 18 patients vs. 16 of 19 patients, P = .01), especially in capsular samples (0 of 18 patients vs. 4 of 19 patients, P = .04). CONCLUSION: The topical 7-day preoperative skin application of acne cream (benzoyl peroxide-miconazole nitrate) significantly reduced the intraoperative C acnes load in 56% of the patients in the intervention group compared with 16% of the control patients.

The Impact of Surgical Strategy and Rifampin on Treatment Outcome in Cutibacterium Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

BACKGROUND: Cutibacterium species are common pathogens in periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). These infections are often treated with ß-lactams or clindamycin as monotherapy, or in combination with rifampin. Clinical evidence supporting the value of adding rifampin for treatment of Cutibacterium PJI is lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we evaluated patients with Cutibacterium PJI and a minimal follow-up of 12 months. The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined by the absence of infection relapse or new infection. We used Fisher's exact tests and Cox proportional hazards models to analyze the effect of rifampin and other factors on clinical success after PJI. RESULTS: We included 187 patients (72.2% male, median age 67 years) with a median follow-up of 36 months. The surgical intervention was a 2-stage exchange in 95 (50.8%), 1-stage exchange in 51 (27.3%), debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in 34 (18.2%), and explantation without reimplantation in 7 (3.7%) patients. Rifampin was included in the antibiotic regimen in 81 (43.3%) cases. Infection relapse occurred in 28 (15.0%), and new infection in 13 (7.0%) cases. In the time-to-event analysis, DAIR (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, P = .03) and antibiotic treatment over 6 weeks (adjusted HR = 0.29, P = .0002) significantly influenced treatment failure. We observed a tentative evidence for a beneficial effect of adding rifampin to the antibiotic treatment-though not statistically significant for treatment failure (adjusted HR = 0.5, P = .07) and not for relapses (adjusted HR = 0.5, P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a rifampin combination is not markedly superior in Cutibacterium PJI, but a dedicated prospective multicenter study is needed.

Is routine measurement of the serum C-reactive protein level helpful during antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infection?

Clinicians frequently monitor serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels during therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFIs), but evidence supporting this is unclear. Using a database from prospective controlled DFI trials, with fixed duration of antibiotic therapy, we correlated the CRP levels at study enrolment and at end of therapy (EOT). Among 159 DFI episodes, 93 involved the bone and 66 the soft tissues. Overall, treatment cured 122 infections (77%), while 37 episodes (23%) recurred after a median of 53 days. The median CRP in the groups with cure versus failure differed minimally at enrolment (median 67 vs. 81 mg/L) or EOT (7 vs. 10 mg/L). Similarly, there was negligible difference in the percentage of CRP levels that normalized at EOT (39% vs. 35%). In our prospective cohorts, a blunt iterative monitoring of CRP during DFI treatment, without correlation with clinical findings, failed to predict treatment failures.

Osteoarticular infections: a specific program for older patients?

BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of elderly patients, arthroplasties, fractures and diabetic foot infections, the worldwide number of osteoarticular infections (OAI) among the elderly is concomitantly expected to rise. AIMS: We explore existing scientific knowledge about OAI in the frail elderly population. METHODS: We performed a literature search linking OAIs to geriatric patients and comparing elderly patients (> 65 years) with average adults (range 18-65 years). RESULTS: In this literature, financial aspects, comparison of diverse therapies on quality of life, reimbursement policies, or specific guidelines or nursing recommendations are missing. Age itself was not an independent factor related to particular pathogens, prevention of OAI, nursing care, and outcomes of OAI. However, geriatric patients were significantly more exposed to adverse events of therapy. They had more co-morbidities and more conservative surgery for OAI. CONCLUSION: Available literature regarding OAI management among elderly patients is sparse. In recent evaluations, age itself does not seem an independent factor related to particular epidemiology, pathogens, prevention, nursing care, rehabilitation and therapeutic outcomes of OAI. Future clinical research will concern more conservative surgical indications, but certainly reduce inappropriate antibiotic use.

Limited improvement and high rate of complication in patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for previous native shoulder infection.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) surgery for the sequelae of former septic native joint shoulder arthritis are unknown but might be inferior to patients without prior bacterial arthritis. METHODS: We performed a single-center case-control study embedded in our prospective RTSA cohort. We matched all patients with prior infections in a 1:1 ratio with patients who underwent RTSA for other indications. The matching variables were indication for surgery, age, sex, dominant/nondominant shoulder, and body mass index. We evaluated outcomes by Constant score and active function. RESULTS: Among 1249 patients in the RTSA cohort, 14 were operated for sequelae of previous native shoulder joint infections. Although both groups significantly improved from preoperative to postoperative values, the outcome of postinfectious patients was clearly inferior in comparison with the control group (absolute [38 ± 17 vs. 75 ± 8, P < .01], relative Constant score [47 ± 19 vs. 88 ± 9, P < .01], Constant pain score [11.0 ± 3.1 vs. 14.3 ± 1.3, P < .01], subjective shoulder value [43 ± 26 vs. 85 ± 10, P < .01], abduction [70 ± 43 vs. 148 ± 29°, P = .001], and elevation [82 ± 49° to 131 ± 16°, P = .02]). Moreover, in the postinfectious group, overall surgical complications occurred in 36%, with the need for revision in 21%. There was, however, no recurrence of infection in any of the patients' shoulders. CONCLUSION: RTSA for end-stage postinfectious joint disease is associated with a high number of complications and reoperations. Clinical outcomes are inferior to those without past infection.

Treating Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Practical State-of-the-Art Update.

Background and Objectives: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) can be difficult to treat and securing optimal clinical outcomes requires a multidisciplinary approach involving a wide variety of medical, surgical and other health care professionals, as well as the patient. Results of studies conducted in the past few years have allowed experts to formulate guidelines that can improve clinical outcomes. Material and Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature on treat- ment of DFO, with an emphasis on studies published in the last two years, especially regarding antimicrobial therapies and surgical approached to treatment of DFO, supplemented by our own extensive clinical and research experience in this field. Results: Major amputations were once com- mon for DFO but, with improved diagnostic and surgical techniques, "conservative" surgery (foot- sparing, resecting only the infected and necrotic bone) is becoming commonplace, especially for forefoot infections. Traditional antibiotic therapy, which has been administered predominantly in- travenously and frequently for several months, can often be replaced by appropriately selected oral antibiotic regimens following only a brief (or even no) parenteral therapy, and given for no more than 6 weeks. Based on ongoing studies, the recommended duration of treatment may soon be even shorter, especially for cases in which a substantial portion of the infected bone has been resected. Using the results of cultures (preferably of bone specimens) and antimicrobial stewardship princi- ples allows clinicians to select evidence-based antibiotic regimens, often of a limited pathogen spec- trum. Intra-osseous antimicrobial and surgical approaches to treatment are also evolving in light of ongoing research. Conclusions: In this narrative, evidenced-based review, taking consideration of principles of antimicrobial stewardship and good surgical practice, we have highlighted the recent literature and offered practical, state-of-the-art advice on the antibiotic and surgical management of DFO.

Little benefit of surgical anchor and suture removal and of antibiotic therapy beyond 6 weeks in infected rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of surgical anchor and/or suture removal and prolonged antibiotic therapy in acute and chronic infections of rotator cuff repair (RCIs). METHODS: A single-center cohort and case-control study (Cox regression) was performed. Outcome variables were remission of infection and postinfection reoperations due to failed tendon healing for mechanical causes. All analyses were performed with an emphasis on anchor and suture retention or removal. RESULTS: We identified 54 primary RCIs (44 men; median age 54 years) that were surgically revised (10 by open débridement and 44 by arthroscopy). Twenty-eight (52%) were not intact on revision surgery (débridement) - 10 were partially and 18 totally re-ruptured. The median number of surgical revisions was 1 (range, 1-3), and the median duration of postsurgical antibiotic therapy was 75 days. After a minimal follow-up of 2 years, 8 infections (8/54, 15%) recurred. Twenty patients needed a revision surgery; in all of those 20 patients, intraoperative samples were negative for infection. By multivariate analysis, anchor removal at the first revision influenced neither remission (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.0) nor the need for later revision surgery due to mechanical sequelae (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.1-1.4). The corresponding HRs for suture removal were 0.9 (95% CI 0.4-1.7) and 0.4 (95% CI 0.1-1.2). Likewise, the numbers of revision surgery (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-1.3) and antibiotics beyond 6 weeks failed to influence remission (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.4-3.1). CONCLUSIONS: In our RCI cohort, the removal of anchors or sutures, repeated revision surgery, or an antibiotic therapy beyond 6 weeks failed to improve remission or to reduce sequelae.

The accuracy of joint aspiration for the diagnosis of shoulder infections.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder joint aspirations are frequently performed to rule out infection. In case of unsuccessful aspiration, physicians often augment the aspiration liquid by injecting saline solution. METHODS: We performed shoulder joint aspirations by fluoroscopic assistance and analyzed the value of an additional saline solution irrigation in patients undergoing revision shoulder surgery. Native joints and post-fracture repair, post-arthroscopy, and post-arthroplasty shoulders were included. A minimum of 3 deep intraoperative tissue samples served as the microbiological gold standard. RESULTS: We performed 106 aspirations occurring between 0 and 179 days before revision surgery. Among them, we could sample intra-articular liquid directly in 60 cases and after saline solution injection in 43 cases, whereas 3 cases remained unsuccessful. According to intraoperative samples, 24 shoulders were infected but only 10 of 24 (42%) yielded pathogens in the aspirate. Moreover, of the 43 saline solution-enforced irrigations, none revealed bacteria but 8 (17%) confirmed infection in intraoperative samples. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of presurgical aspirations were 33%, 98%, 80%, and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSION: When surgical revision is planned, presurgical shoulder joint aspiration is not reliable to sufficiently exclude shoulder joint infection. Nevertheless, a positive aspiration finding can guide clinical decision making, so we propose to perform aspiration only if there is a clinically high index of suspicion for an infection. Irrigation after unsuccessful primary aspiration is futile.

Outcome of Ray Resection as Definitive Treatment in Forefoot Infection or Ischemia: A Cohort Study.

Ray resection is frequently performed in cases of infection or ischemia, but the literature is scarce concerning its outcome as a definitive treatment. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed our cohort with transmetatarsal ray resection with a mean follow-up of 36.3 months. Reulcerations, transfer ulcers, and reamputations were determined. Risk factor analysis for revision surgery was conducted. Among 185 patients, 71 (38.4%) had revision surgery within a mean of 1.4 ± 2.6 years (range 2 days to 12.9 years), 22 (11.9%) had major amputations, 49 (26.5%) had minor amputations, 11 (5.9%) had same-ray reulceration, 40 (21.6%) had transfer ulceration, and 2 (1.1%) had both reulceration and transfer ulceration. Occurrence of a postoperative ulcer was statistically significantly associated with revision surgery (p < .01). In conclusion, metatarsal ray resection is a reasonable treatment option in cases of forefoot ischemia or infection to prevent major amputation but fails in 11.9%, and reulceration is associated with further revisions, making ulcer prevention paramount.

Principles and practice of antibiotic stewardship in the management of diabetic foot infections.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Systemic antibiotic therapy in persons with a diabetic foot infection (DFI) is frequent, increasing the risk of promoting resistance to common pathogens. Applying principles of antibiotic stewardship may help avoid this problem. RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a systematic review of the literature, especially seeking recently published studies, for data on the role and value of antibiotic stewardship (especially reducing the spectrum and duration of antibiotic therapy) in community and hospital populations of persons with a DFI. SUMMARY: We found very few publications specifically concerning antibiotic stewardship in persons with a DFI. The case-mix of these patients is substantial and infection plays only one part among several chronic problems. As with other types of infections, attempting to prevent infections and avoiding or reducing the spectrum and duration of antibiotic therapy are perhaps the best ways to reduce antibiotic prescribing in the DFI population. The field is complex and necessitates knowledge over the current scientific literature and clinical experience. On a larger scale, clinical pathways, guidelines, and recommendations are additionally supportive.

Four versus six weeks of antibiotic therapy for osteoarticular infections after implant removal: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for treating orthopaedic implant infections after surgical drainage and complete implant removal is unknown. METHODS: This was a single-centre, unblinded, prospective trial randomizing (1:1) eligible patients to either 4 or 6 weeks of systemic, pathogen-targeted antibiotic therapy. Clinical trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0362209). RESULTS: We analysed 123 eligible patients (62 in the 4 week antibiotic arm and 61 in the 6 week arm) in the ITT analysis. The patients' median age was 64 years, 75 (61%) were men and 38 (31%) were immunocompromised. The most common types of infection treated included: two-stage exchange procedure for prosthetic joint infection (n = 38); orthopaedic plate infection (44) and infected nail implants (11). The median duration of post-explant intravenous antibiotic therapy was 4 days. Overall, 120 episodes (98%) were cured microbiologically and 116 (94%) clinically after a median follow-up period of 2.2 years. During follow-up, four patients had a clinical recurrence with a pathogen other than the initial causative agent. We noted recurrence of clinical infection in four patients in the 4 week arm and three patients in the 6 week arm (4/62 versus 3/61; χ2 test; P = 0.74); in all cases, this occurred at around 2 months following the end of antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference in the rates of clinical or microbiological remission between patients randomized to only 4 compared with 6 weeks of systemic antibiotic therapy after removal of an infected osteoarticular implant.