Concordance Between Bone Pathology and Bone Culture for the Diagnosis of Osteomyelitis in the Presence of Charcot Neuro-Osteoarthropathy

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.

Clinical practice recommendations for infectious disease management of diabetic foot infection (DFI) - 2023 SPILF

In march 2020, the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) published an update of the 2015 guidelines on the diagnosis and management of diabetic foot infection (DFI). While we (the French ID society, SPILF) endorsed some of these recommendations, we wanted to update our own 2006 guidelines and specifically provide informative elements on modalities of microbiological diagnosis and antibiotic treatment (especially first- and second-line regiments, oral switch and duration). The recommendations put forward in the present guidelines are addressed to healthcare professionals managing patients with DFI and more specifically focused on infectious disease management of this type of infection, which clearly needs a multidisciplinary approach. Staging of the severity of the infection is mandatory using the classification drawn up by the IWGDF. Microbiological samples should be taken only in the event of clinical signs suggesting infection in accordance with a strict preliminarily established protocol. Empirical antibiotic therapy should be chosen according to the IWGDF grade of infection and duration of the wound, but must always cover methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Early reevaluation of the patient is a fundamental step, and duration of antibiotic therapy can be shortened in many situations. When osteomyelitis is suspected, standard foot radiograph is the first-line imagery examination and a bone biopsy should be performed for microbiological documentation. Histological analysis of the bone sample is no longer recommended. High dosages of antibiotics are recommended in cases of confirmed osteomyelitis.

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.

Surgical treatment of midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A wide range of clinical presentations of Charcot neuroarthropathy of the foot with concomitant osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes has been described. Existing literature provides an equally diverse list of treatment options. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes specifically for the surgical management of midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted by three independent reviewers using the following databases and search engines: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Ovid, PubMed and Scopus. Search terms used were: Charcot neuroarthropathy, osteoarthropathy, neuro-osteoarthropathy, neurogenic arthropathy, osteomyelitis, midfoot, foot, ankle, diabetes mellitus, ulceration, wound, infection, surgical offloading, diabetic reconstruction, internal fixation, external fixation. Studies meeting the following criteria were included: English language studies, studies published from 1997-2017, patients with diabetes mellitus surgically treated for Charcot neuroarthropathy of the midfoot (specified location) with concomitant osteomyelitis, with or without internal and/or external fixation, follow-up period of six months or more postoperatively, documentation of healing rates, complications, and need for revisional surgery. Studies which were entirely literature reviews, descriptions of surgical-only technique and/or cadaveric studies, patients without diabetes, studies that did not specify location of osteomyelitis and Charcot neuroarthropathy, and treatment proximal to and including Chopart's/midtarsal joint specifically talonavicular, calcaneocuboid, subtalar, ankle were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 13 selected studies, with a total of 114 patients with diabetes of which 56 had surgical treatment for midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis, met the above inclusion criteria and were used for data extraction.

CONCLUSION

Surgical intervention for midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy with osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes demonstrated a relatively high success rate for a range of procedures including debridement with simple exostectomy, arthrodesis with or without internal or external fixation, and advanced soft tissue reconstruction. However, this systematic review emphasises the need for larger, better designed studies to investigate the efficacy and failure rates of surgical treatment in this group of patients.

Performance of a rapid two-sequence screening protocol for osteomyelitis of the foot

OBJECTIVE

Compare a two sequence protocol to a standard protocol in the detection of pedal osteomyelitis (OM) and abscesses and to identify patients that benefit from a full protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-two foot MRIs ordered to assess for OM were enrolled, and the following items were extracted from the clinical reports: use of IV contrast, the presence of OM, reactive osteitis, and a soft tissue abscess. Using only one T1 nonfat-suppressed and one fluid sensitive fat-suppressed sequences, two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed each case for the presence of OM, reactive osteitis, or an abscess. A Kappa test was calculated to assess for interobserver agreement, and diagnostic performance was determined. The McNemar test was used to assess for the effect of contrast.

RESULTS

Agreement between both observers and the clinical report on the presence of osteomyelitis was substantial ( k = 0.63 and 0.72, p < 0.001), while the agreement for abscess was fair (k = 0.29 and 0.38, p < 0.001). For osteomyelitis, both observers showed good accuracy (0.85 and 0.86). When screening bone for a normal versus abnormal case, this method was highly sensitive (0.97-0.98), but was less sensitive for abscess (0.63-0.75). Fifty-one percent of exams used contrast, and it did impact the diagnosis of abscess for one observer.

CONCLUSION

This rapid protocol is accurate in making the diagnosis of OM, and its high sensitivity makes it useful to screen for patients that would benefit from a full protocol.

Which diagnostic tests in everyday clinical practice are (not) useful in the management of diabetic foot disease?

This commentary reviews the use of a small number of tests used in the routine management of foot disease in diabetes. The aim is to consider some of the evidence underlying the use of these tests and the difficulties that can be encountered in interpretation. All tests have their limitations and it is important for these to be understood by the clinicians who request them. There are few test results which are categorically diagnostic in the field of the diabetic foot and the majority merely provide supporting evidence for a diagnosis that is either less or more strongly suspected on other grounds.

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.

Management of bacterial skin and skin structure infections with polymicrobial etiology

INTRODUCTION

Skin and Soft Tissue Infections (SSTIs) are some of the most commonly occurring bacterial infections, with a wide range of possible etiological pathogens and a considerable variety of clinical presentations and severity; from mild to severe life-threatening infections. Several classifications have been proposed based on a specific variable, such as anatomical localization, skin extension, progression rate, clinical presentation, severity, and etiological agent. Areas covered: The last criteria allows the differentiation of SSTIs as monomicrobial and polymicrobial. Among them, especially those infections with a long lasting or chronic course can be sustained by multiple microbial etiology. Most polymicrobial SSTIs can be included in the following: diabetes foot infections (DFIs), pressure ulcers infection, burn infection, and infected chronic ulcers. Expert commentary: The medical management of these infections comprises the administration of wide a spectrum antibiotic, taking into consideration the frequent occurrence of multidrug resistant microorganisms as responsible agents. An appropriate deep tissue specimen for microbiological examination is a very important issue, especially for polymicrobial infections, sometimes permitting the distinction between real pathogens and contaminants avoiding more complex antibiotic treatments. This aspect must be strongly emphasized, as frequently superficial swabs remain the specimen of choice because they are easy to obtain.