Comparison of microbiological results obtained from per-wound bone biopsies versus transcutaneous bone biopsies in diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a prospective cohort study.

Transcutaneous bone biopsy (TCB) is the gold standard for taking microbiological specimens in diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO), but this technique is not widely used in diabetic foot care centers. We aimed to evaluate the reliability of per-wound bone biopsy (PWB) cultures by comparing them with concomitant TCB cultures obtained through healthy skin. This is a prospective monocentric study including patients seen in consultation for clinical and radiological diabetic foot osteomyelitis with positive probe-bone tests between April 2015 and May 2018. Two bone biopsies were performed on each consenting patient: TCB through a cutaneous incision in healthy skin, and PWB, after careful debridement of the wound. A total of 46 paired cultures were available from 43 eligible patients. Overall, 16 (42%) of the PWB and TCB pairs had identical culture results, but the TCB cultures were sterile in 8 (17%) cases. For 38 paired cultures with positive TCB, the correlation between PWB results and TCB results was 58.4%. PWB revealed all microorganisms found in the transcutaneous specimen in 26/38 samples (68.5%). In patients with DFO, the culture results of specimens taken by per-wound biopsies did not correlate well with those obtained by TCB. PWB should be reserved for cases where the transcutaneous biopsy is sterile or not feasible.

Short-term pain evolution in chronic low back pain with Modic type 1 changes treated by a lumbar rigid brace: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Blocking the lumbar or lumbosacral spine with a custom-made rigid lumbar brace, based on the mechanical origin of active discopathy, is a therapeutic option for low back pain, but no study has yet defined its applicability in low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the pain evolution of individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain associated with Modic type 1 changes treated with custom-made rigid lumbar brace. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study conducted in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation unit at Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, France, between January 2014 and December 2016. Inclusion criteria were adults with non-specific chronic low back pain associated with Modic type 1 changes on the lumbar or lumbosacral spine confirmed by MRI. Patients had 4 consultations with the physician (baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 5 months). The brace was progressively withdrawn at 3 months. The main outcome was pain improvement of at least 30% at 3 months (visual pain scale). The secondary outcome was an improvement of at least 50%. We also studied the association between pain improvement at the 2 thresholds (30 and 50%) and clinical data, level of Modic type 1 changes, and pain recurrence after withdrawal of the brace. RESULTS: Among the 174 patients who wore the brace, 62 were included in the study; 49/62 (79%) showed improvement of at least 30% at 3 months. Two months after brace withdrawal, pain recurred for 30/46 patients (16 missing data). No sociodemographic, clinical or radiographic criteria were associated with pain evolution. CONCLUSION: In the present study, a rigid lumbar brace worn for 3 months was associated with a 30% reduction in pain for 79% of patients with chronic low back pain and active discopathy. However, the retrospective open and uncontrolled design of our study limits our interpretation about a specific treatment effect. A prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to clarify the effect of a rigid lumbar brace in this condition.

Mixed qualitative and quantitative approach for validating an information booklet before total hip arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: Providing patients with validated information before total hip arthroplasty may help lessen discrepancies between patients' expectations and the surgical result. This study sought to validate an information booklet for candidates for hip arthroplasty by using a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach based on a panel of patients and a sample of healthcare professionals. METHODS: We developed a booklet in accordance with the standard methods and then conducted focus groups to collect the opinions of a sample of multidisciplinary experts involved in the care of patients with hip osteoarthritis. The number of focus groups and experts was determined according to the data saturation principle. A panel of patients awaiting hip arthroplasty or those in the immediate post-operative period assessed the booklet with self-reporting questionnaires (knowledge, beliefs, and expectations) and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: All experts and both patient groups validated the booklet in terms of content and presentation. Semi-structured interviews were uninformative, especially for post-operative patients. Reading the booklet significantly (P<0.001) improved the knowledge scores in both groups, with no intergroup differences, but did not affect beliefs in either patient group. Only pre-operative patients significantly changed their expectations. CONCLUSION: Our mixed qualitative and quantitative approach allowed us to validate a booklet for patients awaiting hip arthroplasty, taking into account the opinions of both patients and healthcare professionals.

A decision-making tool to prescribe knee orthoses in daily practice for patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision-making tool (DMT) to facilitate the prescription of knee orthoses for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in daily practice. METHODS: A steering committee gathered a multidisciplinary task force experienced in OA management/clinical research. Two members performed a literature review with qualitative analysis of the highest-quality randomized controlled trials and practice guidelines to confirm evidence concerning knee orthosis for OA. A first DMT draft was presented to the task force in a 1-day meeting in January 2016. The first version of the DMT was criticized and discussed regarding everyday practice issues. Every step was discussed and amended until consensus agreement was achieved within the task force. Then 4 successive consultation rounds occurred by electronic communication, first with primary- and secondary-care physicians, then with international experts. All corrections and suggestions by each member were shared with the rest of the task force and included to reach final consensus. The final version was validated by the steering committee. RESULTS: The definition and indication of several types of knee orthoses (sleeve, patello-femoral, hinged or unicompartmental offloading braces) were detailed. Orthoses may be proposed in addition to first-line non-pharmacological treatment if patient acceptance is considered good. At every step, a specific clinical assessment is needed. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Based on the latest high-level evidence, practice guidelines, and an expert panel, a DMT to facilitate daily practice prescription of knee orthoses for OA patients was designed. An evaluation of DMT implementation in a wide range of health professionals is still needed.