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.

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.

Definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update).

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetes-related foot disease and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease. This document describes the 2023 update of these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research, to facilitate clear communication with people with diabetes-related foot disease and between professionals around the world.

Does complete resection of infected bone improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis?

The objective of the study was to compare outcomes in patients with complete surgical resection versus partial resection of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (OM). A post hoc analysis of 171 patients with OM was performed using data from two randomized clinical trials. OM was confirmed with bone culture or histopathology. Surgical culture specimens were obtained from resected bone and sent for histopathology and microbiology. Residual osteomyelitis (RO) was defined as a positive resected margin on culture or histopathology. No residual osteomyelitis (NRO) was defined as no growth from bone culture and no histopathological inflammation in the biopsy of the resection margin. Data from the 12-month follow-up were used to determine clinical outcomes. During the index hospitalization, NRO patients had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 21.0, 13.0-38.0 vs. RO 37.0, 20.8-50.0, p <0.01) and more amputations than patients with RO (NRO 89.9% vs. RO 60.9%, p <0.01). During the 12-month follow-up, patients with NRO also had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 42, 21.0-66.5 vs. RO 50.5, 35.0-75.0, p = 0.02). During the 12-month follow-up, there was no difference in ulceration at the same site (NRO 3.7%, RO 4.3% p = 0.85), hospitalization (NRO 32.6%, RO 34.8%, p = 0.76), total re-infections (NRO 25.3%, RO 29.3%, p = 0.56), re-infection with osteomyelitis (NRO 13.3% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.36), amputation (NRO 8.8%, RO 5.4%, p = 0.86) and time to wound healing in days (NRO 94, 41.0-365 vs. RO 106, 42.8-365, p = 0.77). Successful treatment of osteomyelitis was achieved by 86.7% and 86.5% of patients. During the index hospitalization, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had more amputations and were treated with antibiotics for a shorter duration. During the 12-month follow-up, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had shorter durations of antibiotics. There were no differences in re-infection, amputation, re-ulceration or hospitalization. Level of evidence: 1.

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.

Rapid Diagnostics of Joint Infections Using IS-Pro.

Diagnosis of bone and joint infections (BJI) relies on microbiological culture which has a long turnaround time and is challenging for certain bacterial species. Rapid molecular methods may alleviate these obstacles. Here, we investigate the diagnostic performance of IS-pro, a broad-scope molecular technique that can detect and identify most bacteria to the species level. IS-pro additionally informs on the amount of human DNA present in a sample, as a measure of leukocyte levels. This test can be performed in 4 h with standard laboratory equipment. Residual material of 591 synovial fluid samples derived from native and prosthetic joints from patients suspected of joint infections that were sent for routine diagnostics was collected and subjected to the IS-pro test. Bacterial species identification as well as bacterial load and human DNA load outcomes of IS-pro were compared to those of culture. At sample level, percent positive agreement (PPA) between IS-pro and culture was 90.6% (95% CI 85.7- to 94%) and negative percent agreement (NPA) was 87.7% (95% CI 84.1 to 90.6%). At species level PPA was 80% (95% CI 74.3 to 84.7%). IS-pro yielded 83 extra bacterial detections over culture for which we found supporting evidence for true positivity in 40% of the extra detections. Missed detections by IS-pro were mostly related to common skin species in low abundance. Bacterial and human DNA signals measured by IS-pro were comparable to bacterial loads and leukocyte counts reported by routine diagnostics. We conclude that IS-pro showed an excellent performance for fast diagnostics of bacterial BJI.

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.

Definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease.

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetic foot disease, and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease. This document describes these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research to facilitate clear communication between professionals.

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.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot in 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 potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers. RESULTS: From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one 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 scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of ulcer healing, of lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue or bone infection. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, both a positive probe-to-bone test and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate are strongly associated with its presence. 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. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, but advanced imaging methods help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localization of infection is uncertain. CONCLUSION: The results of this first reported systematic review on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.

Declining Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Incidence in Dutch Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men After Unrestricted Access to HCV Therapy.

Background: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAa) cure hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in 95% of infected patients. Modeling studies predict that universal HCV treatment will lead to a decrease in the incidence of new infections but real-life data are lacking. The incidence of HCV among Dutch human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) has been high for >10 years. In 2015 DAAs became available to all Dutch HCV patients and resulted in a rapid treatment uptake in HIV-positive MSM. We assessed whether this uptake was followed by a decrease in the incidence of HCV infections. Methods: Two prospective studies of treatment for acute HCV infection enrolled patients in 17 Dutch HIV centers, having 76% of the total HIV-positive MSM population in care in the Netherlands. Patients were recruited in 2014 and 2016, the years before and after unrestricted DAA availability. We compared the HCV incidence in both years. Results: The incidence of acute HCV infection decreased from 93 infections during 8290 person-years of follow-up (PYFU) in 2014 (11.2/1000 PYFU; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1-13.7) to 49 during 8961 PYFU in 2016 (5.5/1000 PYFU; 4.1-7.2). The incidence rate ratio of 2016 compared with 2014 was 0.49 (95% CI, .35-.69). Simultaneously, a significant increase in the percentage positive syphilis (+2.2%) and gonorrhea (+2.8%) tests in HIV-positive MSM was observed at sexual health clinics across the Netherlands and contradicts a decrease in risk behavior as an alternative explanation. Conclusions: Unrestricted DAA availability in the Netherlands was followed by a 51% decrease in acute HCV infections among HIV-positive MSM.

The 'morning dip' in antimicrobial appropriateness: circumstances determining appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing.

Objectives: Quality of care has been shown to vary depending on the time of day or day of the week and depending on caregivers' gender and experience. We aimed to study how these factors influence quality of antimicrobial prescribing. Methods: Prospective point-prevalence surveys were performed to determine the association between the above-mentioned prescription factors and antimicrobial appropriateness. Surveys included cases of patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital with a prescribed systemic antimicrobial drug and its prescribers. The main outcome was appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions. A post hoc qualitative survey among hospital physicians asked physicians to reflect on the results. Results: The study included 351 antimicrobial prescriptions by 150 physicians prescribed for 276 patients. Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in the morning was significantly lower compared with the afternoon and evening/night [43% versus 68% versus 70%, crude OR afternoon versus morning = 3.00 (95% CI = 1.60-5.48), crude OR evening/night versus morning = 3.40 (95% CI = 1.64-6.69)]. First-year residents performed significantly worse than their more experienced colleagues [51% versus 69%, crude OR = 2.09 (95% CI = 1.26-3.38)]. Infectious disease expert consultation improved appropriateness [54% versus 81%, crude OR = 3.71 (95% CI = 2.05-6.23)]. No significant effects for gender or office hours versus non-office hours were found. Post hoc survey results suggest creating room to improve prescribing circumstances during mornings and for inexperienced physicians. Conclusions: Antimicrobial prescribing was less appropriate in the mornings and when prescribed by inexperienced physicians. Appropriateness may be increased by improving prescribing circumstances.

Assessment of appropriate antimicrobial prescribing: do experts agree?

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the validity and reliability of expert assessments of the quality of antimicrobial prescribing, despite their importance in antimicrobial stewardship. We investigated how infectious disease doctors' assessments compared with a reference standard (modal expert opinion) and with the assessments of their colleagues. METHODS: Twenty-four doctors specialized in infectious diseases or clinical microbiology (16 specialists and 8 residents) from five hospitals were asked to assess the appropriateness of antimicrobial agents prescribed for a broad spectrum of indications in 56 paper cases. They were instructed how to handle guideline applicability and deviations. We created a reference standard of antimicrobial appropriateness using the modal assessment of 16 specialists. We calculated criterion validity and interrater and intrarater overall and specific agreement with an index expert (senior infectious disease physician) and analysed the influence of doctor characteristics on validity. RESULTS: Specialists agreed with the reference standard in 80% of cases (range 75%-86%), with a sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 84%, respectively. This did not differ by clinical specialty, hospital or years of experience, and residents had similar results. Specialists agreed with the index expert in 76% of cases and the index expert agreed with his previous assessments in 71% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors specialized in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology assess the appropriateness of antimicrobials prescribed for a broad spectrum of indications with acceptable agreement and validity, regardless of their experience or hospital of employment. However, there is room for improvement, which merits attention in multidisciplinary discussions and education.

Pitfalls in diagnosing diabetic foot infections.

Although the diagnosis of a diabetic foot infection is made based on clinical symptoms and signs, we also use blood laboratory, microbiological and radiological studies to make treatment decisions. All of these diagnostic studies have pitfalls that can lead to a delay in diagnosis. Such delays will likely lead to further tissue damage and to a higher chance of amputation. One of these pitfalls is that some clinicians rely on microbiological, rather than clinical data, to diagnose infection. Though subjective by nature, clinical signs predict outcome of foot infections accurately. Another pitfall is that microbiological data can be misleading. All wounds harbour microorganisms; therefore, a positive wound culture does not mean that a wound is infected. Furthermore, the outcome of cultures of wound swabs does not correlate well with culture results of tissue biopsies. Therapy guidance by wound swab will likely lead to overtreatment of non-pathogenic organisms. Genotyping might have a role in identifying previously unrecognized (combinations of) pathogens in diabetic foot infection, bacteria in sessile phenotype and non-culturable pathogens, e.g. in cases where antibiotics have already been administered. One more pitfall is that the diagnosis of osteomyelitis remains difficult. Although the result of percutaneous bone biopsy is the reference standard for osteomyelitis, some other diagnostic modalities can aid in the diagnosis. A combination of several of these diagnostic tests is probably a good strategy to achieve a higher diagnostic accuracy. Relying on a single test will likely lead to misidentification of patients with osteomyelitis with associated overtreatment and undertreatment.

Effect of surgical decompression of nerves in the lower extremity in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy on stability: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of decompression of nerves in the lower extremity in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy on static balance using a sensitive pressure mat system. DESIGN: Non-blinded randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single center study performed at the University Medical Center Utrecht between 2010-2013. SUBJECTS: Patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy assessed with the Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom score and Diabetic Neuropathy Examination between 18-90 years. Exclusion criteria were: physical problems leading to instability, BMI>35 kg/m2, ankle fractures in history, amputations proximal to the tarsometatarsal joints, active foot ulcer(s), severe occlusive peripheral vascular diseases. INTERVENTION: Unilateral surgical nerve decompression at four sites in the lower extremity, the contralateral limb was used as control (within-patient comparison), with one year follow-up. MAIN MEASURES: Preoperatively and 6 and 12 months postoperatively, weight bearing and five variables of sway of the center of pressure were measured with a pressure mat with eyes open and eyes closed. T-test was used for evaluation of postoperative results. RESULTS: Thirty-nine Patients met inclusion criteria and were enrolled for stability testing. Postoperatively no significant differences for sway variables and weight bearing were seen compared to preoperatively measurements. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that surgical decompression of nerves of the lower extremity influences stability within one year after surgery in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy.