The value of combined radionuclide and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and conservative management of minimal or localized osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients

Diagnostic imaging of the diabetic foot: an EANM evidence-based guidance

PURPOSE

Consensus on the choice of the most accurate imaging strategy in diabetic foot infective and non-infective complications is still lacking. This document provides evidence-based recommendations, aiming at defining which imaging modality should be preferred in different clinical settings.

METHODS

This working group includes 8 nuclear medicine physicians appointed by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), 3 radiologists and 3 clinicians (one diabetologist, one podiatrist and one infectious diseases specialist) selected for their expertise in diabetic foot. The latter members formulated some clinical questions that are not completely covered by current guidelines. These questions were converted into statements and addressed through a systematic analysis of available literature by using the PICO (Population/Problem-Intervention/Indicator-Comparator-Outcome) strategy. Each consensus statement was scored for level of evidence and for recommendation grade, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria.

RESULTS

Nine clinical questions were formulated by clinicians and used to provide 7 evidence-based recommendations: (1) A patient with a positive probe-to-bone test, positive plain X-rays and elevated ESR should be treated for presumptive osteomyelitis (OM). (2) Advanced imaging with MRI and WBC scintigraphy, or [18F]FDG PET/CT, should be considered when it is needed to better evaluate the location, extent or severity of the infection, in order to plan more tailored treatment. (3) In a patient with suspected OM, positive PTB test but negative plain X-rays, advanced imaging with MRI or WBC scintigraphy + SPECT/CT, or with [18F]FDG PET/CT, is needed to accurately assess the extent of the infection. (4) There are no evidence-based data to definitively prefer one imaging modality over the others for detecting OM or STI in fore- mid- and hind-foot. MRI is generally the first advanced imaging modality to be performed. In case of equivocal results, radiolabelled WBC imaging or [18F]FDG PET/CT should be used to detect OM or STI. (5) MRI is the method of choice for diagnosing or excluding Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy; [18F]FDG PET/CT can be used as an alternative. (6) If assessing whether a patient with a Charcot foot has a superimposed infection, however, WBC scintigraphy may be more accurate than [18F]FDG PET/CT in differentiating OM from Charcot arthropathy. (7) Whenever possible, microbiological or histological assessment should be performed to confirm the diagnosis. (8) Consider appealing to an additional imaging modality in a patient with persisting clinical suspicion of infection, but negative imaging.

CONCLUSION

These practical recommendations highlight, and should assist clinicians in understanding, the role of imaging in the diagnostic workup of diabetic foot complications.

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.

Diabetic Foot Infections: The Diagnostic Challenges

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are severe complications of long-standing diabetes, and they represent a diagnostic challenge, since the differentiation between osteomyelitis (OM), soft tissue infection (STI), and Charcot’s osteoarthropathy is very difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, such differential diagnosis is mandatory in order to plan the most appropriate treatment for the patient. The isolation of the pathogen from bone or soft tissues is still the gold standard for diagnosis; however, it would be desirable to have a non-invasive test that is able to detect, localize, and evaluate the extent of the infection with high accuracy. A multidisciplinary approach is the key for the correct management of diabetic patients dealing with infective complications, but at the moment, no definite diagnostic flow charts still exist. This review aims at providing an overview on multimodality imaging for the diagnosis of DFI and to address evidence-based answers to the clinicians when they appeal to radiologists or nuclear medicine (NM) physicians for studying their patients.

Diagnosis of peripheral bone and prosthetic joint infections: overview on the consensus documents by the EANM, EBJIS, and ESR (with ESCMID endorsement)

OBJECTIVES

Peripheral bone infection (PBI) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are two different infectious conditions of the musculoskeletal system. They have in common to be quite challenging to be diagnosed and no clear diagnostic flowchart has been established. Thus, a conjoined initiative on these two topics has been initiated by the European Society of Radiology (ESR), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID). The purpose of this work is to provide an overview on the two consensus documents on PBI and PJI that originated by the conjoined work of the ESR, EANM, and EBJIS (with ESCMID endorsement).

METHODS AND RESULTS

After literature search, a list of 18 statements for PBI and 25 statements for PJI were drafted in consensus on the most debated diagnostic challenges on these two topics, with emphasis on imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, white blood cell scintigraphy and magnetic resonance imaging have individually demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance over other imaging modalities for the diagnosis of PBI and PJI. However, the choice of which advanced diagnostic modality to use first depends on several factors, such as the benefit for the patient, local experience of imaging specialists, costs, and availability. Since robust, comparative studies among most tests do not exist, the proposed flowcharts are based not only on existing literature but also on the opinion of multiple experts involved on these topics.

KEY POINTS

• For peripheral bone infection and prosthetic joint infection, white blood cell and magnetic resonance imaging have individually demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance over other imaging modalities. • Two evidence- and expert-based diagnostic flowcharts involving variable combination of laboratory tests, biopsy methods, and radiological and nuclear medicine imaging modalities are proposed by a multi-society expert panel. • Clinical application of these flowcharts depends on several factors, such as the benefit for the patient, local experience, costs, and availability.

Consensus document for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections: a joint paper by the EANM, EBJIS, and ESR (with ESCMID endorsement)

Background

For the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection, real evidence-based guidelines to aid clinicians in choosing the most accurate diagnostic strategy are lacking.

Aim and Methods

To address this need, we performed a multidisciplinary systematic review of relevant nuclear medicine, radiological, orthopaedic, infectious, and microbiological literature to define the diagnostic accuracy of each diagnostic technique and to address and provide evidence-based answers on uniform statements for each topic that was found to be important to develop a commonly agreed upon diagnostic flowchart.

Results and Conclusion

The approach used to prepare this set of multidisciplinary guidelines was to define statements of interest and follow the procedure indicated by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (OCEBM).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00259-019-4263-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Detection of Osteomyelitis in the Diabetic Foot by Imaging Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing MRI, White Blood Cell Scintigraphy, and FDG-PET

OBJECTIVE

Diagnosing bone infection in the diabetic foot is challenging and often requires several diagnostic procedures, including advanced imaging. We compared the diagnostic performances of MRI, radiolabeled white blood cell (WBC) scintigraphy (either with ^99mTc-hexamethylpropyleneamineoxime [HMPAO] or ¹¹¹In-oxine), and [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (¹⁸F-FDG-PET)/computed tomography.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched Medline and Embase as of August 2016 for studies of diagnostic tests on patients known or suspected to have diabetes and a foot infection. We performed a systematic review using criteria recommended by the Cochrane Review of a database that included prospective and retrospective diagnostic studies performed on patients with diabetes in whom there was a clinical suspicion of osteomyelitis of the foot. The preferred reference standard was bone biopsy and subsequent pathological (or microbiological) examination.

RESULTS

Our review found 6,649 articles; 3,894 in Medline and 2,755 in Embase. A total of 27 full articles and 2 posters was selected for inclusion in the analysis. The performance characteristics for the ¹⁸F-FDG-PET were: sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 92%; diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), 95; positive likelihood ratio (LR), 11; and negative LR, 0.11. For WBC scan with ¹¹¹In-oxine, the values were: sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 75%; DOR, 34; positive LR, 3.6; and negative LR, 0.1. For WBC scan with ^99mTc-HMPAO, the values were: sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 92%; DOR, 118; positive LR, 12; and negative LR, 0.1. Finally, for MRI, the values were: sensitivity, 93%; specificity, 75%; DOR, 37; positive LR, 3.66, and negative LR, 0.10.

CONCLUSIONS

The various modalities have similar sensitivity, but ¹⁸F-FDG-PET and ^99mTc-HMPAO-labeled WBC scintigraphy offer the highest specificity. Larger prospective studies with a direct comparison among the different imaging techniques are required.

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.

Diagnosis and management of infection in the diabetic foot

Foot infections are common in persons with diabetes mellitus. Most diabetic foot infections occur in a foot ulcer, which serves as a point of entry for pathogens. Unchecked, infection can spread contiguously to involve underlying tissues, including bone. A diabetic foot infection is often the pivotal event leading to lower extremity amputation, which account for about 60% of all amputations in developed countries. Given the crucial role infections play in the cascade toward amputation, all clinicians who see diabetic patients should have at least a basic understanding of how to diagnose and treat this problem.

Expert opinion on the management of infections in the diabetic foot

This update of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot incorporates some information from a related review of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) and a systematic review of the management of infection of the diabetic foot. The pathophysiology of these infections is now well understood, and there is a validated system for classifying the severity of infections based on their clinical findings. Diagnosing osteomyelitis remains difficult, but several recent publications have clarified the role of clinical, laboratory and imaging tests. Magnetic resonance imaging has emerged as the most accurate means of diagnosing bone infection, but bone biopsy for culture and histopathology remains the criterion standard. Determining the organisms responsible for a diabetic foot infection via culture of appropriately collected tissue specimens enables clinicians to make optimal antibiotic choices based on culture and sensitivity results. In addition to culture-directed antibiotic therapy, most infections require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor debridement to major resection, amputation or revascularization. Clinicians must also provide proper wound care to ensure healing of the wound. Various adjunctive therapies may benefit some patients, but the data supporting them are weak. If properly treated, most diabetic foot infections can be cured. Providers practising in developing countries, and their patients, face especially challenging situations.

Combined clinical and laboratory testing improves diagnostic accuracy for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the value of using routinely available clinical and laboratory tests in combination to distinguish osteomyelitis from cellulitis in a diabetic population with mild to moderately infected forefoot ulcers. We conducted a case-control study of 54 diabetic patients with 54 locally infected ulcers admitted to a university-affiliated tertiary-care hospital over a 4.5-year period. A total of 30 clinical and laboratory characteristics obtained at admission were tested for their association with pathology-proven osteomyelitis using logistic regression techniques. Ulcer depth greater than 3 mm (univariate odds ratio 10.4, P = .001) and C-reactive protein greater than 3.2 mg/dL (univariate odds ratio 10.8, P < .001) were the most informative individual clinical and laboratory tests for differentiating osteomyelitis from cellulitis. Adding C-reactive protein also significantly improved upon the accuracy of the study's best clinical testing strategy (area under the curve improved from 0.80 to 0.88, P = .040). Strategies that combined ulcer depth with serum inflammatory markers proved most useful in detecting ulcerated patients with concomitant bone infections (sensitivity 100% [95% CI 89.7%-100%] for both ulcer depth greater than 3 mm or C-reactive protein greater than 3.2 mg/dL, and ulcer depth greater than 3 mm or erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 60 mm/h). We conclude that considering clinical and laboratory findings together can significantly improve our diagnostic accuracy for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. The specific combination of ulcer depth with serum inflammatory markers appears to be a particularly sensitive strategy that may allow for greater detection of early diabetic osteomyelitis.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

3.

Probe-to-bone test for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis: reliable or relic?

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the accuracy of the probe-to-bone (PTB) test in diagnosing foot osteomyelitis in a cohort of diabetic patients with bone culture proven disease.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 2-year longitudinal cohort study, we enrolled 1,666 consecutive diabetic individuals who underwent an initial standardized detailed foot assessment, followed by examinations at regular intervals. Patients were instructed to immediately come to the foot clinic if they developed a lower-extremity complication. For all patients with a lower-extremity wound, we compared the results of the PTB test with those of a culture of the affected bone. We called PTB positive if the bone or joint was palpable and defined osteomyelitis as a positive bone culture.

RESULTS

Over a mean of 27.2 months of follow-up, 247 patients developed a foot wound and 151 developed 199 foot infections. Osteomyelitis was found in 30 patients: 12% of those with a foot wound and 20% in those with a foot infection. When all wounds were considered, the PTB test was highly sensitive (0.87) and specific (0.91); the positive predictive value was only 0.57, but the negative predictive value was 0.98.

CONCLUSIONS

The PTB test, when used in a population of diabetic patients with a foot wound among whom the prevalence of osteomyelitis was 12%, had a relatively low positive predictive value, but a negative test may exclude the diagnosis.

Nuclear medicine imaging of diabetic foot infection: results of meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Osteomyelitis of the foot is the most commonly encountered complication in diabetic patients. Nuclear medicine techniques are usually complementary to radiology in the diagnosis of foot infections; they play an important role in various clinical situations. The aim of this study was to develop a practical guideline to describe the radiopharmaceuticals to be used for different clinical conditions and different aims in diabetic foot infection.

METHODS

In this study, we reviewed 57 papers (published between 1982 and 2004; 50 original papers and seven reviews) that described the imaging of the diabetic foot and examined a total of 2889 lesions. We performed data analysis to establish which imaging technique could be used as a 'gold standard' to diagnose infection, evaluate the extent of disease and monitor the efficacy of therapy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We provide a guideline to assist in the selection of the optimal radiopharmaceuticals for different clinical conditions and different aims.

Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. Foot infections in patients with diabetes cause substantial morbidity and frequent visits to health care professionals and may lead to amputation of a lower extremity. 2. Diabetic foot infections require attention to local (foot) and systemic (metabolic) issues and coordinated management, preferably by a multidisciplinary foot-care team (A-II). The team managing these infections should include, or have ready access to, an infectious diseases specialist or a medical microbiologist (B-II). 3. The major predisposing factor to these infections is foot ulceration, which is usually related to peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral vascular disease and various immunological disturbances play a secondary role. 4. Aerobic Gram-positive cocci (especially Staphylococcus aureus) are the predominant pathogens in diabetic foot infections. Patients who have chronic wounds or who have recently received antibiotic therapy may also be infected with Gram-negative rods, and those with foot ischemia or gangrene may have obligate anaerobic pathogens. 5. Wound infections must be diagnosed clinically on the basis of local (and occasionally systemic) signs and symptoms of inflammation. Laboratory (including microbiological) investigations are of limited use for diagnosing infection, except in cases of osteomyelitis (B-II). 6. Send appropriately obtained specimens for culture before starting empirical antibiotic therapy in all cases of infection, except perhaps those that are mild and previously untreated (B-III). Tissue specimens obtained by biopsy, ulcer curettage, or aspiration are preferable to wound swab specimens (A-I). 7. Imaging studies may help diagnose or better define deep, soft-tissue purulent collections and are usually needed to detect pathological findings in bone. Plain radiography may be adequate in many cases, but MRI (in preference to isotope scanning) is more sensitive and specific, especially for detection of soft-tissue lesions (A-I). 8. Infections should be categorized by their severity on the basis of readily assessable clinical and laboratory features (B-II). Most important among these are the specific tissues involved, the adequacy of arterial perfusion, and the presence of systemic toxicity or metabolic instability. Categorization helps determine the degree of risk to the patient and the limb and, thus, the urgency and venue of management. 9. Available evidence does not support treating clinically uninfected ulcers with antibiotic therapy (D-III). Antibiotic therapy is necessary for virtually all infected wounds, but it is often insufficient without appropriate wound care. 10. Select an empirical antibiotic regimen on the basis of the severity of the infection and the likely etiologic agent(s) (B-II). Therapy aimed solely at aerobic Gram-positive cocci may be sufficient for mild-to-moderate infections in patients who have not recently received antibiotic therapy (A-II). Broad-spectrum empirical therapy is not routinely required but is indicated for severe infections, pending culture results and antibiotic susceptibility data (B-III). Take into consideration any recent antibiotic therapy and local antibiotic susceptibility data, especially the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or other resistant organisms. Definitive therapy should be based on both the culture results and susceptibility data and the clinical response to the empirical regimen (C-III). 11. There is only limited evidence with which to make informed choices among the various topical, oral, and parenteral antibiotic agents. Virtually all severe and some moderate infections require parenteral therapy, at least initially (C-III). Highly bioavailable oral antibiotics can be used in most mild and in many moderate infections, including some cases of osteomyelitis (A-II). Topical therapy may be used for some mild superficial infections (B-I). 12. Continue antibiotic therapy until there is evidence that the infection has resolved but not necessarily until a wound has healed. Suggestions for the duration of antibiotic therapy are as follows: for mild infections, 12 weeks usually suffices, but some require an additional 12 weeks; for moderate and severe infections, usually 24 weeks is sufficient, depending on the structures involved, the adequacy of debridement, the type of soft-tissue wound cover, and wound vascularity (A-II); and for osteomyelitis, generally at least 46 weeks is required, but a shorter duration is sufficient if the entire infected bone is removed, and probably a longer duration is needed if infected bone remains (B-II). 13. If an infection in a clinically stable patient fails to respond to 1 antibiotic courses, consider discontinuing all antimicrobials and, after a few days, obtaining optimal culture specimens (C-III). 14. Seek surgical consultation and, when needed, intervention for infections accompanied by a deep abscess, extensive bone or joint involvement, crepitus, substantial necrosis or gangrene, or necrotizing fasciitis (A-II). Evaluating the limb's arterial supply and revascularizing when indicated are particularly important. Surgeons with experience and interest in the field should be recruited by the foot-care team, if possible. 15. Providing optimal wound care, in addition to appropriate antibiotic treatment of the infection, is crucial for healing (A-I). This includes proper wound cleansing, debridement of any callus and necrotic tissue, and, especially, off-loading of pressure. There is insufficient evidence to recommend use of a specific wound dressing or any type of wound healing agents or products for infected foot wounds. 16. Patients with infected wounds require early and careful follow-up observation to ensure that the selected medical and surgical treatment regimens have been appropriate and effective (B-III). 17. Studies have not adequately defined the role of most adjunctive therapies for diabetic foot infections, but systematic reviews suggest that granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy may help prevent amputations (B-I). These treatments may be useful for severe infections or for those that have not adequately responded to therapy, despite correcting for all amenable local and systemic adverse factors. 18. Spread of infection to bone (osteitis or osteomyelitis) may be difficult to distinguish from noninfectious osteoarthropathy. Clinical examination and imaging tests may suffice, but bone biopsy is valuable for establishing the diagnosis of osteomyelitis, for defining the pathogenic organism(s), and for determining the antibiotic susceptibilities of such organisms (B-II). 19. Although this field has matured, further research is much needed. The committee especially recommends that adequately powered prospective studies be undertaken to elucidate and validate systems for classifying infection, diagnosing osteomyelitis, defining optimal antibiotic regimens in various situations, and clarifying the role of surgery in treating osteomyelitis (A-III).

Evidence-Based Protocol for Diabetic Foot Ulcers

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot ulcers are the single biggest risk factor for nontraumatic foot amputations in persons with diabetes. Foot ulcers occur in 12 to 25 percent of persons with diabetes and precede 84 percent of all nontraumatic amputations in this growing population. Because of the high incidence of foot ulcers, amputations remain a source of morbidity and mortality in persons with diabetes. Strict adherence to evidence-based protocols as described herein will prevent the majority of these amputations.

METHODS

The collective experience of treating patients with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers in four major diabetic foot programs in the United States and Europe was analyzed.

RESULTS

The following protocol was developed for patients with diabetic foot ulcers: (1) establishment of good communication among the patient, the wound healing team, and the primary medical doctor; (2) comprehensive, protocol-driven care of the entire patient, including hemoglobin A1c, microalbuminuria, and cholesterol as well as early treatment of retinopathy, nephropathy, and cardiac disease; (3) weekly objective measurement of the wound with digital photography, planimetry, and documentation of the wound-healing process using the Wound Electronic Medical Record, if available; (4) objective evaluation of blood flow in the lower extremities (e.g., noninvasive flow studies); (5) débridement of hyperkeratotic, infected, and nonviable tissue; (6) use of systemic antibiotics for deep infection, drainage, and cellulitis; (7) off-loading; (8) maintenance of a moist wound bed; (9) use of growth factor and/or cellular therapy if the wound is not healing after 3 weeks with this protocol; and (10) consideration of the use of vacuum-assisted therapy in complex wounds.

CONCLUSIONS

In diabetic foot ulcers, availability of the above modalities, in combination with early recognition and comprehensive treatment, ensures rapid healing, minimizes morbidity and mortality rates, and eliminates toe and limb amputations in the absence of ischemia and osteomyelitis.

Comparison between Leukoscan® (Sulesomab) and Gallium-67 for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot

OBJECTIVES

The diagnosis of osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot is difficult both clinically and radiologically. An early diagnosis is crucial to optimize therapeutic strategy. Among the diagnostic methods currently used, scintigraphy with ex-vivo labelled white blood cells is the gold standard, but cannot be performed in all centers; therefore 67Gallium citrate (67Ga) imaging in combination with a bone scintigraphy is still widely used.

METHOD

The results of imaging 24 diabetic patients with 31 suspected osteomyelitic lesions using the antigranulocyte Fab' fragment (Sulesomab or LeukoScan or immunoscintigraphy) were prospectively compared with results from the bone scan coupled with 67Ga. The diagnosis of osteomyelitis was confirmed by either biopsy or follow-up, radiological imaging and clinical outcome.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Sulesomab correctly identified 12 of 18 osteomyelitic lesions while 67Ga was able to detect only 8 of 18. Therefore the sensitivity is 67% for Sulesomab and 44% for 67Ga. Among the 13 non-osteomyelitic lesions imaging with Sulesomab was able to rule out infection in 11 cases and 67Ga in 10 cases. The specificity is therefore 85% for Sulesomab and 77% for 67Ga. Image interpretation for Sulesomab in this group of patients is occasionally suboptimal when imaging is performed at 3 hours post injection. High vascular background in the early images may obscure infection especially in small bones. Practically, scintigraphy with Sulesomab is fast and simple due to ease of labeling, no ex-vivo handling of blood, low radiation and provides rapid diagnosis. The diagnosis of osteomyelitis obtained by the antibody fragment scintigraphy influences the management (guided biopsy) and therapy. In several patients, imaging with Sulesomab was able to rule out osteomyelitis, helping to avoid useless antibiotic therapy and its associated side effects.

Preoperative imaging of Charcot neuroarthropathy in diabetic patients: comparison of ring PET, hybrid PET, and magnetic resonance imaging

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of Charcot neuroarthropathy in the feet of diabetic patients has undergone fundamental changes in the last few years. Formerly, treatment was almost exclusively limited to nonoperative measures; since the late 1990s, however, current practice has shifted to early, stage-appropriate surgical therapy. The objective of this prospective study was to investigate the value of two types of positron emission tomography (PET) in the preoperative evaluation of diabetic patients with Charcot foot deformities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ring [(18)F]FDG (2-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose) and hybrid PET were compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI, ring PET, and hybrid PET imaging were used as part of the preoperative evaluation of 16 patients with type II diabetes mellitus. The diagnosis of Charcot neuropathy of the foot requiring operative treatment had been made on the basis of clinical and radiographic criteria.

RESULTS

Of 39 Charcot lesions confirmed at surgery, 37 were detected by ring PET, 30 by hybrid PET, and 31 by MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

PET (ring or hybrid) can be used in the evaluation of patients with metal implants that would compromise the accuracy of MRI. Another advantage of PET is its ability to distinguish between inflammatory and infectious soft-tissue lesions, and between osteomyelitis and Charcot neuroarthropathy. The differentiation between Charcot neuroarthropathy and florid osteomyelitis provides the surgeon with important additional information that often is unavailable from MRI. Because it provides important additional data, ring PET may be preferable to radiography and MRI in the preoperative evaluation of patients with Charcot neuroarthropathy of the foot. Hybrid PET, because of its poorer resolution compared to ring PET, appears less suitable for routine clinical application.

Protocol for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

Each year, 82,000 limb amputations are performed in patients with diabetes mellitus. The majority of these amputations could be avoided by following strict protocols. The collective experience treating patients with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers of 4 major diabetic foot programs in the United States and Europe were analyzed. The following protocol has been developed for patients with diabetic foot ulcers: (1) measurement of the wound by planimetry; (2) optimal glucose control; (3) surgical debridement of all hyperkeratotic, infected, and nonviable tissue; (4) systemic antibiotics for deep infection, drainage, and cellulitis; (5) offloading; (6) moist-wound environment; and (7) treatment with growth factors and/or cellular therapy if the wound is not healing after 2 weeks with this protocol and a new epithelial layer is not forming. In addition, the pathogenesis of diabetic foot ulcers is discussed, as well as the associated costs and complications, including amputation. Debridement, wound-bed preparation, antibiotics, various types of dressings, biological therapies, growth factors, and offloading are described as treatment modalities for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. In diabetic foot ulcers, availability of the above modalities, in combination with early recognition and comprehensive treatment, ensure rapid healing and minimize morbidity, mortality, and costs, as well as eliminate amputation in the absence of ischemia and osteomyelitis.