Bioengineered Skin for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Scoping Review.

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) pose a significant threat to individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM), such as lower limb amputation and severe morbidity. Bioengineered skin substitutes (BSS) are alternatives to traditional interventions for treating DFUs, but their efficacy compared to standard wound care (SWC) or other treatment types, such as allografts, remains unknown. A scoping review of human studies was conducted to identify current approaches in the treatment of DFUs using BSS as compared with other treatment options. Systematic searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were conducted to identify comparative studies that enrolled 10 or more patients and evaluated wound healing outcomes (closure, time-to-healing, and area reduction). Database searches isolated articles published from 1 December 2012 to 1 December 2022 and were conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The literature search yielded 1312 articles, 24 of which were included for the qualitative analysis. Findings in these studies demonstrated that BSS outperformed SWC in all measured outcomes, suggesting that BSS may be a superior treatment for DFUs. Of the 24 articles, 8 articles compared human amniotic membrane allografts (hAMA) to BSS. Conflicting evidence was observed when comparing BSS and hAMA treatments, highlighting the need for future research.

The Effect of Limb Salvage Efforts in Different Age Groups: Relationships Between Major and Minor Amputations.

"Limb salvage" efforts, such as performing minor amputations before infections spread proximally from the foot to decrease major lower extremity amputation, are an important part of healthcare today. It is unclear whether these efforts are preventing the number of major amputations and improving patients' quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of the U.S. healthcare system. Rates of non-traumatic lower extremity amputation (NLEA) among patients with diabetes decreased in the early 2000s but rebounded in the 2010s. We analyzed the proportion of major amputations and differences in amputation rates between age groups in Texas. Patient data was extracted from the Texas Hospital Discharge Data Public Use Data File. Population estimates were obtained from the Texas Population Estimates Program from 2011 to 2015 and from intercensal estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau from 2006 to 2010. Raw numbers of minor, major, and all NLEA surgeries and the ratio of major amputations to total amputations per year were reported for each age group. Poisson regression and Joinpoint analyses were performed to capture these changes in trends. Rates of amputations increased, with significant decreasing relative prevalence of major amputations. Patients aged 45 to 64 with diabetes are likely driving these increases. Rates of lower extremity amputation in patients with diabetes increased from 2009 to 2015. This holds for all and minor amputations. In contrast, the ratio of major to all amputations decreased from 2010. Utilization of major and minor amputation differs between age groups, remaining stable in the youngest subjects, with minor amputation rates increasing in those aged 45 to 64.

Revolutionizing fracture fixation in diabetic and non-diabetic rats: High mobility group box 1-based coating for enhanced osseointegration.

Chronic inflammation and hyperglycemia in diabetic patients increase the risk of implant failure and impaired fracture healing. We previously developed and characterized a titanium (Ti) coating strategy using an imidazolium-based ionic liquid (IonL) with a fully reduced, non-oxidizable High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) isoform (Ti-IonL-HMGB1) to immunomodulate tissue healing. In this study, we used an open reduction fracture fixation (ORIF) model in non-diabetic (ND) and diabetic (D) rats to further investigate the effectiveness of this Ti-IonL-HMGB1 coating on orthopedic applications. Ninety male Lewis rats (12-15 weeks) were divided into D (n = 45) and ND (n = 45) groups that were distributed into three subgroups based on the type of local treatment received: Ti (uncoated Ti), Ti-IonL, and Ti-IonL-HMGB1 implants. Fracture healing and osseointegration were evaluated using microtomographic, histological, and immunohistochemical analysis of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), Runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2), and HMGB1 markers at 2, 10, and 21 days post-ORIF. Scanning Electron Microscopy verified the coating stability after placement. Microtomographic and histological analysis demonstrated increased fracture healing and osseointegration for ND rats in all treatment groups at 10 days, with impaired healing for D rats. Immunohistochemical analysis exhibited elevated PCNA+ and RUNX2+ cells for D animals treated with Ti-IonL-HMGB1 at 21 days compared to all other groups. The immunohistochemical marker HMGB1 was elevated at all time points for D animals in comparison to ND animals, yet was lowered for D tissues near the Ti-IonL-HMGB1 treated implant. Improved osseous healing was demonstrated in D animals with Ti-IonL-HMGB1 treatment by 21 days, compared to D animals with other treatments. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing Ti-IonL-HMGB1 implantation in an injury site through ORIF procedures in ND and D rats. This surface approach has potential for improving implanted biomaterials in diabetic environments.

A Model Study to Evaluate Osseointegration and Fracture Healing Following Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) in Diabetic Lewis Rats.

There is a higher risk of implant osseointegration failure after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in patients with diabetes due to increased inflammatory conditions, associated metallic corrosion and infection. While it is possible to avoid elective osseous surgery in patients with diabetes, it may not be the case in nonelective cases, such as ORIF ankle fractures. A total of 30 male Lewis rats (12-15 weeks old) were distributed into diabetic (D) and nondiabetic (ND) groups. Fracture healing and osseointegration were evaluated at 2-, 10-, and 21-day time points. Microtomographic and histological analysis depicted distinct differences in fracture healing and osseointegration between D and ND animals. Immunohistochemical analysis exhibited elevated proliferation (PCNA) and osteogenic (Runx2) cells for ND animals, while HMGB1 (inflammatory marker) was elevated for D animals during healing. Bone resorption marker CTX-1 was elevated in the plasma of D animals at 2 days, while bone formation marker P1NP was higher for ND animals at 10 days. Overall, this model resulted in delayed implant osseointegration and fracture healing in diabetic animals, highlighting the importance of developing new biomaterials or implant coatings that can improve bone healing outcomes in this patient population.

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.

Pathophysiology and Molecular Imaging of Diabetic Foot Infections.

Diabetic foot infection is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower limb amputations worldwide. In addition, diabetes mellitus and sequela of the disease are increasing in prevalence. In 2017, 9.4% of Americans were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM). The growing pervasiveness and financial implications of diabetic foot infection (DFI) indicate an acute need for improved clinical assessment and treatment. Complex pathophysiology and suboptimal specificity of current non-invasive imaging modalities have made diagnosis and treatment response challenging. Current anatomical and molecular clinical imaging strategies have mainly targeted the host's immune responses rather than the unique metabolism of the invading microorganism. Advances in imaging have the potential to reduce the impact of these problems and improve the assessment of DFI, particularly in distinguishing infection of soft tissue alone from osteomyelitis (OM). This review presents a summary of the known pathophysiology of DFI, the molecular basis of current and emerging diagnostic imaging techniques, and the mechanistic links of these imaging techniques to the pathophysiology of diabetic foot infections.

Are the Sanders-Frykberg and Brodsky-Trepman Classifications Reliable in Diabetic Charcot Neuroarthropathy?

The purpose of this study was to assess the intra- and inter-reader reliability of the 2 Charcot neuroarthropathy classifications (Sanders-Frykberg and Brodsky-Trepman), as well as Eichenholtz staging. We hypothesized that the inter-reader reliability, with respect to these 3 classification systems, would be moderate at best. Digital radiographic images were organized in a digital slide presentation without clinical information. All 5 reviewers underwent a standard training session administered by the principal investigator, reviewing 5 cases of Charcot neuroarthropathy. Images of 55 cases of Charcot neuroarthropathy and 5 normal cases were distributed to each of the 5 physicians electronically, who independently rated all 60 cases according to the 3 classification systems. The 95% confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficient estimate for Sanders-Frykberg was 0.9601 to 0.9833 at week 0 and 0.9579 to 0.9814 at week 8, which can be regarded as "excellent" reliability. For Trepman-Brodsky, the 95% confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficient estimate was 0.8463 to 0.9327 at week 0 and 0.8129 to 0.9226 at week 8, which can be regarded as "good" to "excellent" reliability. For Eichenholtz, the 95% confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficient estimate was 0.6841 to 0.8640 and 0.6931 to 0.8730 at weeks 0 and 8, respectively, which can be regarded as "moderate" to "good" reliability. The classification systems of Charcot neuroarthropathy are an important tool for communication among physicians. Based on the results at our institution, the Sanders-Frykberg classification exhibited the best inter-reader performance. The Trepman-Brodsky classification exhibited good to excellent reliability as well. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the Eichenholtz classification was moderate to good.

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.

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.

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.

The infected diabetic foot: Can serum biomarkers predict osteomyelitis after hospital discharge for diabetic foot infections?

The aim of this study is to evaluate serum biomarkers to monitor high-risk patients for reinfection of bone. Thirty-five patients were prospectively enrolled with moderate to severe diabetic foot infections with suspicion of osteomyelitis. Bone samples were obtained for culture and histology. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients were compared using χ2 square test. Biomarkers (white blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, c-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) were assessed at baseline, 3, and 6 weeks after treatment initiation and evaluated for correlation with reinfection of bone. After 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment, ESR at 73.5 mm/h (sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 100%, area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) 0.7839, 95% CI 0.54-1.00, P < .01) and IL-8 at 15.09 mg/dL (sensitivity 42.9%, specificity 92.0% AUROC 0.6286, 95% CI 0.36-0.90, P = .0496) were associated with reinfection of bone. An increase in IL-8 from week 0 to 6 >0.95 mg/dL was associated with reinfection (sensitivity 71%, specificity 72% AUROC 0.7057, 95% CI 0.49-0.92, P = .04). An ESR change from week 0-6 of -16.5% (sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 86.4% AUROC 0.7403, 95% CI 0.48-1.00, P = .02), CRP (-)74.4% (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 91.3% AUROC 0.7174, 95% CI 0.40-1.00, P = .04), IL-6 (-)49.9% (sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 76% AUROC 0.7371, 95% CI 0.47-1.00, P = .04), and IL-8 29% (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 56.0% AUROC of 0.7343, 95% CI 0.54-0.93, P = .048) were associated with increased risk of reinfection. Pilot data suggest that serum biomarkers (ESR, IL8 and IL6, MCP-1) may be correlated with developing osteomyelitis and could be used to monitor high-risk patients for reinfection.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Foot Infections in Patients Without Diabetes.

The aim of this study was to report clinical outcomes of moderate and severe foot infections in patients without diabetes. Medical records of 88 nondiabetic patients with foot infections treated at a safety net hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped by the presence of soft-tissue infection (STI) or osteomyelitis (OM). The diagnosis of OM was determined by positive bone culture or histopathology. STIs were defined by negative bone biopsy or negative imaging with magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography/dual-modality radiolabeled white blood cell single-photon emission computed tomography. Patient outcomes were recorded ≤1 year after admission. Eighty-eight nondiabetic patients admitted to our institution for moderate or severe foot infections were included, 45 OM and 43 STI. No differences were noted in patient characteristics except that OM patients had a higher prevalence of neuropathy (66.7% versus 39.5%, p = .02). OM patients required surgery more often (97.8% versus 67.4%, p < .01), a greater number of surgeries (2.0 ± 1.2 versus 1.4 ± 1.3, p = .02), and more amputations (75.6% versus 11.6%, p < .01) than STI patients. OM patients had a higher proportion of wounds that healed (82.2% versus 62.8%, p = .04). There were no significant differences in reinfection (35.6% versus 25.6%, p = .36), foot-related readmission to hospital (35.6% versus 23.3%, p = .25), or total duration of antibiotics (13.9 ± 10.2 versus 13.5 ± 12.9, p = .87) between OM and STI patients. In conclusion, OM patients required more surgeries and amputations than patients with STIs; however, they had similar rates of reinfection and readmission within a year after the index hospitalization.

Randomized clinical study to compare negative pressure wound therapy with simultaneous saline irrigation and traditional negative pressure wound therapy for complex foot infections.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices and NPWT with and without simultaneous irrigation in patients admitted to hospital with moderate and severe foot infections. Ninety patients were randomized in a 12-week prospective, randomized noninferiority trial to compare wound healing in patients with moderate and severe infected foot wounds treated with NPWT after surgery. Inclusion criteria included ABI > 0.5 or toe pressures >30 PVR/mmHg, >18 years of age and exclusion included active Charcot arthropathy, collagen vascular disease, HIV, and hypercoagulable state. We compared two different traditional devices, NPWT-K (KCI, VAC Ulta) and NPWT-C (Cardinal, PRO), and NPWT-I with saline irrigation (Cardinal, PRO). All patients had therapy delivered at 125 mmHg continuous pressure. In patients who received simultaneous saline irrigation (NPWT-I), the administration rate was 15 ml per hour. The primary outcome was the proportion of healed wounds in 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included surgical wound closure, number of surgeries, length of stay, and time to wound healing. Continuous data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square to compare dichotomous variables with an alpha of 0.05. There were no differences in outcomes among NPWT-I, NPWT-C, and NPWT-K groups in proportion of healed wounds (63.3%, 50.0%, 46.7% p = 0.39), surgical wound closure (83.3%, 80.0%, 63.3%, p = 0.15), number of surgeries (2.0 ± 0.49, 2.4 ± 0.77, 2.4 ± 0.68, p = 0.06), length of stay (16.3 ± 15.7, 14.7 ± 7.4, 15.3 ± 10.5 days, p = 0.87), time to wound healing (46.2 ± 22.8, 40.9 ± 18.8, 45.9 ± 28.3 days, p = 0.78). We did not identify any significant differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between patients treated with different NPWT devices or NPWT with and without irrigation.

The Infected Diabetic Foot: Re-evaluating the Infectious Diseases Society of America Diabetic Foot Infection Classification.

BACKGROUND: We provide evidence to revise the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) diabetic foot infection classification by adding a separate tier for osteomyelitis and evaluating if moderate and severe infection criteria improve the classification's ability to direct therapy and determine outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 294 patients with moderate and severe infections. Osteomyelitis was confirmed by bone culture or histopathology. Soft tissue infection (STI) was based on negative bone culture, magnetic resonance imaging, or single-photon emission computed tomography. We stratified STI and osteomyelitis using IDSA criteria for moderate and severe infections and compared outcomes and complications. RESULTS: Osteomyelitis patients had greater antibiotic duration (32.5 ± 46.8 vs 63.8 ± 55.1 days; P < .01), surgery frequency (55.5% vs 99.4%; P < .01), number of surgeries (2.1 ± 1.3 vs 3.3 ± 2.3; P < .01), amputations (26.3% vs 83.4%; P < .01), reinfection (38.0% vs 56.7%; P < .01), and length of stay (14.5 ± 14.9 vs 22.6 ± 19.0 days; P < .01). There were no differences in moderate and severe STI outcomes except for infection readmissions (46.2% vs 25.0%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (31.2% vs 50.0%; P = .03). There were no differences in moderate and severe osteomyelitis except the number of surgeries (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 4.1 ± 2.5; P < .01) and length of stay (18.6 ± 17.5 vs 28.2 ± 17.7; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The IDSA classification better reflects outcomes if risk categories are stratified by STI or osteomyelitis and moderate and severe infections are not categorized separately.

Do SIRS Criteria Predict Clinical Outcomes in Diabetic Skin and Soft Tissue Infections?

The aim of this study was to assess whether systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is correlated with outcomes in diabetic foot infections (DFIs). We retrospectively reviewed 137 diabetic patients admitted to the hospital with Infectious Diseases Society of America moderate and severe DFIs. We used SIRS criteria to define severe infection based on the presence of at least 2 of the following: heart rate >90 bpm, temperature >38°C or <36°C, respiratory rate >20 breaths per minute, and white blood cell count >12,000/mm3 or <4,000/mm3. Patients with severe DFI were significantly younger (median 49.6 versus 53.6 years, p = .04), less often had type 2 diabetes (88.6% versus 98.9%, p = .01), and less often had a history of previous amputation (15.9% versus 40.9%, p < .01). There were no differences in patients with severe infections defined by SIRS versus moderate infections in the need for surgery (47.7% versus 59.1%, p = .27), any amputation (20.5% versus 29.0%, p = .29), leg amputations (6.8% versus 7.5%, p = .88), duration of antibiotics (median ± standard deviation 34.1 ± 46.5 versus 31.9 ± 47.2 days, p = .47), or healing within 1 year (68.2% versus 66.7%, p = 1.00). Length of hospital stay was the only outcome variable that was significantly different in severe infections (median 12.7 ± 11.9 versus 7.8 ± 5.8 days, p = .02). Foot-related readmission was more common in moderate infections (46.2% versus 25.0%, p = .02). In conclusion, SIRS criteria for severe infections in diabetic patients with skin and soft tissue infections were not associated with a difference in outcomes other than longer hospital stay.

Outcomes of Foot Infections Secondary to Puncture Injuries in Patients With and Without Diabetes.

It is difficult to compare foot infections in patients with diabetes to those without diabetes because foot infections are uncommon in people without diabetes. The aim of this study is to compare clinical outcomes in people with and without diabetes admitted to the hospital for an infected puncture wound. We evaluated 114 consecutive patients from June 2011 to March 2019 with foot infection resulting from a puncture injury; 83 had diabetes and 31 did not have diabetes. We evaluated peripheral arterial disease (PAD), sensory neuropathy, the need for surgery and amputation, length of hospitalization, and presence of osteomyelitis. Patients with diabetes were 31 times more likely to have neuropathy (91.6% versus 25.8%, p < .001, confidence interval [CI] 10.2 to 95.3), 8 times more likely to have PAD (34.9% versus 6.5%, p = .002, CI 1.7 to 35), and 7 times more likely to have kidney disease (19.3% versus 3.2%, p < .05, CI 0.9 to 56.5). They also took longer before presenting to the hospital (mean 20.1 ± 36.3 versus 18.8 ± 34.8 days, p = .09, CI 13 to 26.5); however, this result was not statistically significant. Patients with diabetes were 9 times more likely to have osteomyelitis (37.3% versus 6.5%, p = .001, CI 1.9 to 38.8). In addition, they were more likely to require surgery (95% versus 77%, p < .001, CI 1.6 to 21.4), required more surgeries (2.7 ± 1.3 versus 1.3 ± 0.8, p < .00001, CI 2.1 to 2.5), were 14 times more likely to have amputations (48.2% versus 6.5%, p < .0001, CI 3.0 to 60.2), and had 2 times longer hospital stays (16.2 ± 10.6 versus 7.5 ± 9 days, p = .0001, CI 11.9 to 15.9. Infected puncture wounds in patients with diabetes often fair much worse with more detrimental outcomes than those in patients without diabetes.