Complications during the treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic and non-diabetic foot infections

To identify the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, reinfection and clinical outcomes. Four hundred forty-six patients that were admitted to the hospital with moderate or severe foot infections were retrospectively reviewed. Tissue and bone cultures were obtained from the index hospital admission. Conversion was defined as methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in the first culture and subsequently MRSA when there was a reinfection. The incidence of MRSA was 7.8% (n = 35), with no significant difference between soft tissue infections (7.7%) and osteomyelitis (8.0%). MRSA incidence was 9.4 times higher in non-diabetics (23.8% vs. 3.2%, p = <0.01). The incidence of reinfection was 40.8% (n = 182). Conversion to MRSA was seen in 2.2% (n = 4) total, occurring in 5.4%. Non-diabetics were 20.1 times more likely to have MRSA reinfection than people with diabetes (28.6% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). MRSA patients had a higher proportion of healed wounds (82.4% vs. 69.3%, p = 0.02). There were no differences in other clinical outcomes in MRSA vs. other infections in reinfection (28.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.11), amputation (48.6% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.69) or hospitalization (28.6% vs. 42.6, p = 0.11). The incidence of MRSA for the first infection (7.8%), reinfection (6.0%) and conversion to MRSA (2.2%) was low. MRSA was 9.4 times more common in people without diabetes.

The Efficacy of Local Antibiotic Delivery Systems Therapy in the Management of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

We aim to evaluate the efficacy of local antibiotic delivery systems in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO).

METHODS

The Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications until March 2024. All studies evaluating the efficacy of local antibiotic delivery systems in patients with DFO were included. We calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. The Cochrane's risk of bias tool and methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) assessment were used to evaluate the quality of studies.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies with 491 patients were included in this analysis. The overall healing rate in antibiotic group was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.97). Healing rates were significantly higher in the antibiotic group compared to the control group (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38). Furthermore, recurrence rates and amputation rates have no significantly difference between the antibiotic group and the control group (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.04, 2.12 and RR: 0.22, 95% CI:0.03, 1.91), along with no significantly difference in healing time and hospital stays(MD: -7.87, 95% CI: -20.81, 5.07 and MD:-2.33, 95% CI:-5.17, 0.50). No obvious publication bias was observed in the funnel plot (Egger's test, P = .99).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis found that diabetic foot osteomyelitis patients treated with local antibiotic delivery systems had better healing rates than the control group. However, no significant differences were found in healing time, recurrence, hospital stays, or amputation rates. Larger randomized controlled trials are necessary in the future.

The Global Prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) frequently leads to infections, with infected DFUs being a common cause of amputation. Infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) notably increases the necessity for amputation and surgical debridement in affected individuals. Consequently, determining the prevalence and trends of MRSA in patients with DFU is of critical importance. This study aimed to assess the global prevalence and to identify trends in the occurrence of MRSA in tissue or wound swab samples from DFU patients.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid, spanning from the inception of these databases to July 2023, imposing no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria required that the studies report on 30 or more patients with DFU. Additionally, we categorized our analysis based on geographic region, publication date, and the economic status of the patient's domicile. Our primary endpoint was to ascertain the prevalence of MRSA in DFUs. This systematic review has been registered at (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), with the identifier CRD 42023444360.

Results

Our analysis encompassed 40 studies involving 12,924 patients across 20 countries. We found that the overall prevalence of MRSA in DFU was 17% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.14-0.20). Regional prevalence varied significantly: in South America, it was 61% (95% CI 0.46-0.76), in North America 20% (95% CI 0.12-0.27), in Europe 19% (95% CI 0.14-0.25), in Africa 13% (95% CI 0.06-0.20), and in other subgroups 11% (95% CI 0.08-0.15). The prevalence of MRSA in DFUs also differed according to the economic status of the countries: 19% (95% CI 0.15-0.23) in high-income countries, 24% (95% CI 0.1-0.37) in upper-middle-income countries, 11% (95% CI 0.07-0.15) in lower-middle-income countries, and 20% (95% CI 0.13-0.27) in low-income countries. Notably, there has been a decline in MRSA prevalence, from 25% before 2010 to 9% thereafter.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis reveals a decreasing yet still significant global prevalence of MRSA in DFUs. This trend has important implications for antimicrobial resistance and underscores the need for developing targeted programs focusing on infection prevention and exploring alternative therapeutic strategies.

Incidence and Recovery of Acute Kidney Injury in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients with Foot Infections

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and recovery of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients admitted to the hospital with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) with foot infections.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 294 patients with DM and 88 without DM admitted to the hospital with foot infections. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines were used to define AKI. Recovery was divided into three categories: full, partial, and no recovery within 90 days of the index AKI.

RESULTS

The AKI incidence was 3.0 times higher in patients with DM (DM 48.5% versus no DM 23.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.74-5.19; P < .01). Acute kidney injury incidence was similar at each stage in people with and without DM (stage 1, DM 58.1% versus no DM 47.6%; stage 2, DM 23.3% versus no DM 33.3%, and stage 3, DM 18.6% versus no DM 19.1%). Twenty-nine patients with diabetes had a second AKI event and four had a third event. In patients without DM, one patient had a second AKI. Cumulative AKI incidence was 4.7 times higher in people with DM (DM 60.9% versus no DM 25.0%; 95% CI, 2.72-8.03; P < .01). Patients with diabetes progressed to chronic kidney disease or in chronic kidney disease stage 39.4% of the time. Patients without diabetes progressed 16.7% of the time, but this trend was not significant (P = .07). Complete recovery was 3.8 times more likely in patients without diabetes (95% CI, 1.26-11.16; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute kidney injury incidence is higher in patients with diabetes, and complete recovery after an AKI is less likely compared to patients without diabetes.

Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Biomarkers in Patients with Diabetic Foot

Background and Objectives: Diabetic foot (DF) development is driven by complex interactions of hyperglycemia, inflammation, and oxidative stress (OS). We aimed to investigate OS and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with DF and their potential to improve early diagnosis and management of DF. Materials and Methods: The prooxidant−antioxidant balance (PAB), superoxide dismutase (SOD), total oxidative status (TOS), total sulfhydryl groups (SHG), routine biochemical parameters, and complete blood count were determined in 42 patients with type-2 DM, of which 23 patients had DF, while 19 patients were without DF complications. The neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was evaluated as a biomarker of inflammation. Results: Patients with DF had significantly higher (p < 0.05) PAB levels (170 ± 33.9 U/L) compared to those without DF complications (142 ± 31.3 U/L). In addition, patients with DF had significantly reduced SOD activities (p < 0.01). NLR values were significantly higher in the DF group (median: 2.8; interquartile range: 2.0−4.3) than in the group without DF (median: 1.4; interquartile range: 1.4−2.1; p < 0.01). A positive correlation was found between the PAB and NLR index (r = 0.449; p < 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of both PAB (AUC = 0.741; p < 0.01) and NLR (AUC = 0.760; p < 0.01) was estimated as acceptable. Conclusions: In conclusion, the development of DF is associated with enhanced OS and inflammation processes. PAB and NLR could be useful non-invasive biomarkers of DF development.

Meta-Analysis: Outcomes of Surgical and Medical Management of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes in the published literature on medical and surgical management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO).

METHODS

A PubMed and Google Scholar search of articles relating to DFO was performed over the dates of January 1931 to January 2020. Articles that involved Charcot arthropathy, case reports, small case series, review articles, commentaries, nonhuman studies, and non-English articles were excluded. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to rate the bias of each study. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects and inverse variance methods. The search yielded 1192 articles. After review and the removal of articles that did not meet inclusion criteria, 28 articles remained. Eighteen articles were related to the medical management of DFO and 13 articles were related to surgical management. Three articles looked at a combination of medical and surgical management and were included in both groups. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran Q, I 2, τ2, and τ.

RESULTS

The average success rate was 68.2% (range, 17.0%-97.3%) for medical treatment and 85.7% (range, 65.0%-98.8%) for surgical and medical treatment. There were significant inconsistencies in accounting for peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. There was significant heterogeneity in outcomes between studies. However, there was a high rate of successful treatment and a wide range between patients with medical treatment and combined surgical and medical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional properly designed prospective studies with gold-standard references for diagnosing osteomyelitis are needed to help determine whether medical management of DFO can be successful without surgical intervention.

The impact of the length of total and intravenous systemic antibiotic therapy for the remission of diabetic foot infections

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the impact of the total length of systemic antibiotic therapy (ABT) and its initial intravenous (IV) part on clinical failure (CF) and microbiological failure (MF) in diabetic foot infections (DFIs).

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective, unmatched case-control study, we included DFI episodes treated with a combined surgical-antibiotic approach.

RESULTS

We included 721 DFI episodes, 537 with osteomyelitis (DFO). CF occurred in 191 (26.5%) and MF in 42 (5.8%) episodes. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that a short ABT of 8-21 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.7) was inversely associated with CF. This was also applicable for IV ABT with relatively short durations of 2-7 days (HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3-0.8) or 8-14 days (HR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4-0.9). We failed to detect a minimal threshold of total or IV ABT predictive for CF or MF.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with total ABT of more than 84 days and IV therapy of more than 14 days, shorter total and IV ABT yielded no enhanced risk of CF or MF. Considering the "bias by indication" that is inherent to retrospective DFI studies, the best study design concerning the duration of ABT would be a stratified, prospective randomized trial, which is currently under way in our medical center.

Short and oral antimicrobial therapy for diabetic foot infection: a narrative review of current knowledge

Diabetic foot infection is a frequent complication in long-standing diabetes mellitus. For antimicrobial therapy of this infection, both the optimal duration and the route of administration are often based more on expert opinion than on published evidence. We reviewed the scientific literature, specifically seeking prospective trials, and aimed at addressing two clinical issues: (1) shortening the currently recommended antibiotic duration and (2) using oral (rather than parenteral) therapy, especially after the patient has undergone debridement and revascularization. We also reviewed some older key articles that are critical to our understanding of the treatment of these infections, particularly with respect to diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Our conclusion is that the maximum duration of antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis should be no more than to 4-6 weeks and might even be shorter in selected cases. In the future, in addition to conducting randomized trials and propagating national and international guidance, we should also explore innovative strategies, such as intraosseous antibiotic agents and bacteriophages.

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.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis

Introduction: The diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually clinical. Its severity is related to the location and depth of the lesion, and the presence of necrosis or gangrene. The aetiology of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually polymicrobial, and DFO is often associated with chronic or recurring ulceration.Areas covered: We built on the  International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines on the management of diabetic foot infection, providing an outline of the current and new concepts in pharmacotherapy in DFO. We assess future strategies in both medical, surgical and combination management of DFO.Expert opinion: Surgical removal of infected bone is considered as the standard treatment, but a medical approach of certain selected situations has now proven efficacy in selected patients. The combination of new modalities in local antibiotic delivery may provide better long-term solutions and more lasting remission and avoid the disadvantages of prolonged systemic antibiotics.

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.

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.

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.

Optimization of the antibiotic management of diabetic foot infections: protocol for two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Few studies have addressed the appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFI) with or without amputation. We will perform two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to reduce the antibiotic use and associated adverse events in DFI.

METHODS

We hypothesize that shorter durations of postdebridement systemic antibiotic therapy are noninferior (10% margin, 80% power, alpha 5%) to existing (long) durations and we will perform two unblinded RCTs with a total of 400 DFI episodes (randomization 1:1) from 2019 to 2022. The primary outcome for both RCTs is remission of infection after a minimal follow-up of 2 months. The secondary outcomes for both RCTs are the incidence of adverse events and the overall treatment costs. The first RCT will allocate the total therapeutic amputations in two arms of 50 patients each: 1 versus 3 weeks of antibiotic therapy for residual osteomyelitis (positive microbiological samples of the residual bone stump); or 1 versus 4 days for remaining soft tissue infection. The second RCT will randomize the conservative approach (only surgical debridement without in toto amputation) in two arms with 50 patients each: 10 versus 20 days of antibiotic therapy for soft tissue infections; and 3 versus 6 weeks for osteomyelitis. All participants will have professional wound debridement, adequate off-loading, angiology evaluation, and a concomitant surgical, re-educational, podiatric, internist and infectiology care. During the surgeries, we will collect tissues for BioBanking and future laboratory studies.

DISCUSSION

Both parallel RCTs will respond to frequent questions regarding the duration of antibiotic use in the both major subsets of DFIs, to ensure the quality of care, and to avoid unnecessary excesses in terms of surgery and antibiotic use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04081792. Registered on 4 September 2019.

Global recurrence rates in diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Recurrence rates of diabetic foot ulcers vary widely in the published literature. The aim of this systematic review is to estimate recurrence rates of diabetic foot ulcers. We did a PubMed search and performed a review of reference lists for studies reporting recurrence of diabetic foot ulcers. The weighted relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for recurrence was estimated. Forty-nine studies reporting recurrence of diabetic foot ulcers were included. A pooled estimate for recurrence rate was 22.1% per person-year (py) (95% CI, 19.0-25.2%). Recurrence rate was 24.9% per py in Europe (95% CI, 20.0%-29.7%), 17.8% per py in North America (95% CI, 12.7%-22.9%), 16.9% per py in Africa (95% CI, 4.7%-29.0%), and 17.0% per py in Asia (95% CI, 11.1%-23.0%). Turkey had the highest recurrence rate of 44.4% per py (95% CI, 24.9%-63.9%), and Bangladesh had the lowest of 4.3% per py (95% CI, 2.3%-6.3%). Recurrence rates of diabetic foot ulcers before 2002, between 2002 and 2008, and after 2008 were 22.2% per py (95% CI, 17.6%-26.8%), 21.9% per py (95% CI, 17.0%-26.8%), and 21.8% per py (95% CI, 16.3%-27.2%), respectively. Recurrence rates of diabetic foot ulcers are high. Recurrence rates vary widely in different regions and have decreased recently. More attention towards recurrence of diabetic foot ulcers is urgently required.

The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among diabetic patients: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Diabetic patients have multiple risk factors for colonisation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a nosocomial pathogen associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence of MRSA among diabetic patients.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published up to May 2018 that reported primary data on the prevalence of MRSA in 10 or more diabetic patients. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted the data. The main outcomes were the pooled prevalence rates of MRSA colonisation and infection among diabetic populations.

RESULTS

Eligible data sets were divided into three groups containing data about the prevalence of MRSA colonisation or in diabetic foot or other infections. From 23 data sets, the prevalence of MRSA colonisation among 11577 diabetics was 9.20% (95% CI, 6.26-12.63%). Comparison of data from 14 studies that examined diabetic and non-diabetic patients found that diabetics had a 4.75% greater colonisation rate (P < 0.0001). From 41 data sets, the prevalence of MRSA in 10994 diabetic foot infection patients was 16.78% (95% CI, 13.21-20.68%). Among 2147 non-foot skin and soft-tissue infections, the MRSA prevalence rate was 18.03% (95% CI, 6.64-33.41).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of MRSA colonisation among diabetic patients is often higher than among non-diabetics; this may make targeted screening attractive. In the UK, many diabetic patients may already be covered by the current screening policies. The prevalence and impact of MRSA among diabetic healthcare workers requires further research. The high prevalence of MRSA among diabetic foot infections may have implications for antimicrobial resistance, and should encourage strategies aimed at infection prevention or alternative therapies.

Infected bone resection plus adjuvant antibiotic-impregnated calcium sulfate versus infected bone resection alone in the treatment of diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis

Background

Managing with diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is challenging. Even after infective bone resection and thorough debridement, DFO is still difficult to cure and has a high recurrence rate. This retrospective study aims to compare the outcomes of two treatment methods, infected bone resection combined with adjuvant antibiotic-impregnated calcium sulfate and infected bone resection alone, for the treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

Methods

Between 2015 to 2017, 48 limbs (46 patients) with DFO met the criteria were included for assessment. 20 limbs (18 patients) were included in the calcium sulfate group (the CS group) in which vancomycin and/or gentamicin-impregnated calcium sulfate was used as an adjuvant after infected bone resection while 28 limbs (28 patients) as the control group were undergone infected bone resection only. Systemic antibiotics, postoperative wound care and offloading were continued to be applied following surgery in both groups. The time to healing, healing rate, recurrence rate and amputation rate were compared between the two groups.

Results

In total, 90% (18/20) limbs in the CS group as compared to 78.6% (22/28) infected limbs in the control group went to heal (P = 0.513). The Mean time to healing was 13.3 weeks in the CS group and 11.2 weeks in control group (P = 0.132). Osteomyelitis recurrence rate was 0% (0/18) in the CS group and 36.4% (8/22) in the control group (P = 0.014). Postoperative leakage in calcium sulfate group was 30.0% (6/20) with a mean duration of 8.5 weeks. Amputation rate in the control group was 7.1% (2/28) compared to 0% (0/20) in the CS group (P = 0.153).

Conclusions

Antibiotic-impregnated calcium sulfate as an adjuvant prevents the recurrence of DFO but cannot improve the healing rate, reduce the postoperative amputation rate or shorten the time to healing. Prolonged postoperative leakage as the most common complication can be managed with regular dressing.

Level of Evidence

III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Osteomyelitis: A Context for Wound Management

GENERAL PURPOSE

To provide an overview of osteomyelitis.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After completing this continuing education activity, you should be able to:1. Distinguish the pathogenesis of osteomyelitis in children and adults.2. Identify practical considerations for diagnosis and evidence-based treatment of osteomyelitis.

ABSTRACT

This educational activity reviews the pathogenesis of osteomyelitis and discusses practical considerations for diagnosis, treatment, and functional rehabilitation of pediatric and adult patients with osteomyelitic wounds. Antibiotic, surgical, and adjunctive treatments will be addressed. Emphasis is placed on consulting with infectious disease specialists and using evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prescribing.

Optimal management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: challenges and solutions

Purpose: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is the most frequent infection associated with diabetic foot ulcers, occurs in >20% of moderate infections and 50%-60% of severe infections, and is associated with high rates of amputation. DFO represents a challenge in both diagnosis and therapy, and many consequences of its condition are related to late diagnosis, delayed referral, or ill-indicated treatment. This review aimed to analyze the current evidence on DFO management and to discuss advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options. Methods: A narrative review of the evidence was begun by searching Medline and PubMed databases for studies using the keywords "management", "diabetic foot", "osteomyelitis", and "diabetic foot osteomyelitis" from 2008 to 2018. Results: We found a great variety of studies focusing on both medical and surgical therapies showing a similar rate of effectiveness and outcomes; however, the main factors in choosing one over the other seem to be associated with the presence of soft-tissue infection or ischemia and the clinical presentation of DFO. Conclusion: Further randomized controlled trials with large samples and long-term follow-up are necessary to demonstrate secondary outcomes, such as recurrence, recurrent ulceration, and reinfection associated with both medical and surgical options.

[New progress in the treatment of chronic wound of diabetic foot]

Diabetic foot is one of the serious complications of diabetic patients. It is caused by diabetes combined with different degrees of lower extremity vascular lesions and neuropathy, and the wound can not heal for a long time. The serious results can cause bone marrow infection, bone destruction, and have high disability and death rate. At present, there are various treatment methods for diabetic foot chronic wound. On the basis of internal medicine controlling blood sugar, anti infection, lowering blood lipid, improving microcirculation and nourishment nerve, the surgical method is adopted, including the debridement of the necrosis in a short time to prevent the infection from spreading; maggot biological debridement and ozone chemical debridement will promote the growth of granulation tissue while controlling infection. Skin grafting, skin flap transplantation, skin distraction closure can be used to repair soft tissue defects, or fat transplantation, platelet-rich plasma, and rich blood are used for the refractory wound after infection control. In patients with diabetic foot, the reconstruction of lower limb blood supply is beneficial to the recovery of chronic ischemic wounds. It is feasible to improve the blood supply of the lower extremities, improve the blood supply of the lower extremity artery bypass grafting, and improve the microcirculation of the peripheral vessels around the lower extremities. Lower extremity vascular bypass pressure perfusion therapy for vascular network expansion, tibia lateral moving technique for lower limb microcirculation reconstruction. For diabetic foot ulcer caused by peripheral neuropathy, such as Charcot foot, while the application of external fixator, total contact cast technology of affected foot for reducing treatment to promote wound healing; the preparation of orthopedic shoes can play a maximum protective effect on the healing of diabetic foot wound healing.

Modern management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. The when, how and why of conservative approaches

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) has long been considered a complex infection that is both difficult to diagnose and treat, and is associated with a high rate of relapse and limb loss. Areas covered: DFO can usually be diagnosed by a combination of clinical evaluation, serum inflammatory markers and plain X-ray. When the results of these procedures are negative or contradictory, advanced imaging tests or bone biopsy may be necessary. Staphylococcus aureus remains the most frequent microorganism isolated from bone specimens, but infection is often polymicrobial. Antibiotic therapy, preferably with oral agents guided by results of bone culture, for a duration of no more than six weeks, appears to be as safe and effective as surgery in cases of uncomplicated forefoot DFO. Surgery (which should be limb-sparing when possible) is always required for DFO accompanied by necrotizing fasciitis, deep abscess, gangrene or in cases not responding (either clinically or radiographically) to apparently appropriate antibiotic treatment. Expert commentary: Research in the past decade has improved diagnosis and treatment of DFO, and most cases can now be managed with a 'conservative' approach, defined as treatment either exclusively with antibiotics or with surgery removing as little bone and soft tissue as necessary.