Percutaneous Bone Biopsy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Variation in Systemic Antibiotic Treatment for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis in England and Wales: A Multi-Centre Case Review

Background: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is a major complication and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Systemic antibiotic therapy is often initiated first line to achieve quiescence of infection. To perform a multi-centre case review of systemic antibiotic intervention to treat adults with DFO in England and Wales and compare with national guidelines 'Diabetic foot problems: prevention and management'. Methods: Eight centres from England and Wales retrospectively collated data from a minimum of five adults (aged ≥ 18 years) from electronic case records. All patients were treated with systemic antibiotics following a new diagnosis of DFO (1 June 2021-31 December 2021). Results: 40 patients (35 males and 5 females) were included; the mean age was 62.3 years (standard deviation (SD) 13.0). Patients commenced systemic oral 14 (35%) or intravenous 26 (65%) antibiotic therapy following a new diagnosis of DFO. Twenty-seven (67.5%) patients were medically or surgically managed in the 12-week period with clinical quiescence of infection. Twenty-one patients (52.5%) had no recurrence of DFO infection within 12 weeks; seventeen (42.5%) of these patients had clinical quiescence of infection with systemic antibiotics alone without surgical intervention and nine (22.5%) of these cases had no recurrence of DFO. There were no cases of major amputation or death. All centres showed significant in-centre variability in systemic antibiotic management; variability was reported in the clinical and quantity indicators specifically to antibiotic selection, single versus dual therapy, mode of delivery and duration of treatment. Conclusions: This case review identifies there is existing variation when treating adults with systemic antibiotics for DFO. Further national guidance is required to standardise service delivery and care to improve patient outcomes.

BedBiopsy: Diagnostic performance of bedside ultrasound-guided bone biopsies for the management of diabetic foot infection

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the feasibility and diagnostic performance of ultrasound-guided bone biopsies at the bedside of diabetic patients admitted for suspected foot osteitis not requiring surgery.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this retrospective monocentric study, we compared the performance of ultrasound-guided (n = 29 consecutive patients, Dec.2020-Oct.2022) versus surgical (n = 24 consecutive patients, Jan.2018-Nov.2020) bone biopsies at confirming or ruling out diabetic foot osteitis (primary outcome).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar in the two intervention groups, including arteritis prevalence (62.3 %), SINBAD score, and wound location (phalanges 36 %, metatarsus 43 %, and calcaneus 21 %). However, the ultrasound-guided group was older (67 ± 11 versus 60 ± 13 years respectively, P = 0.047) and had more type 2 diabetes (97 % versus 75 %, P = 0.038). Diagnostic performance (i.e., capacity to confirm or rule out suspected osteitis) was similar for ultrasound-guided (28/29 cases: 25 confirmations, 3 invalidations) and surgical (24 confirmations/24) biopsies, P = 0.358. No biopsy-related side effect or complication was observed for either intervention, even for patients on antiaggregation and/or anticoagulation therapy. The mean (± standard deviation) time necessary to perform the biopsy was shorter in the ultrasound-guided group (2.6 ± 3.0 versus 7.2 ± 5.8 days, respectively, P < 0.001) and wound evolution at three months was more favorable (83.3 versus 41.2 %, P = 0.005) (94.4 % versus 66.7 %, respectively, patients with new surgical procedure within six months excluded; P = 0.055). Even though not statistically significant, healing rates in terms of wound and osteitis at six months were also better in the ultrasound-guided group (wound: 40.9 % versus 36.8 %; P = 0.790, and osteitis: 81.8 vs 55.6 % P = 0.071).

CONCLUSION

In diabetic patients with suspected foot osteitis not requiring surgery, bedside ultrasound-guided bone biopsies may constitute a promising alternative to surgical biopsies. This intervention provided excellent tolerance and microbiological documentation, short lead-times, and more favorable wound prognosis.

Chronic Nonspinal Osteomyelitis in Adults: Consensus Recommendations on Percutaneous Bone Biopsies from the Society of Academic Bone Radiologists

The diagnosis and management of chronic nonspinal osteomyelitis can be challenging, and guidelines regarding the appropriateness of performing percutaneous image-guided biopsies to acquire bone samples for microbiological analysis remain limited. An expert panel convened by the Society of Academic Bone Radiologists developed and endorsed consensus statements on the various indications for percutaneous image-guided biopsies to standardize care and eliminate inconsistencies across institutions. The issued statements pertain to several commonly encountered clinical presentations of chronic osteomyelitis and were supported by a literature review. For most patients, MRI can help guide management and effectively rule out osteomyelitis when performed soon after presentation. Additionally, in the appropriate clinical setting, open wounds such as sinus tracts and ulcers, as well as joint fluid aspirates, can be used for microbiological culture to determine the causative microorganism. If MRI findings are positive, surgery is not needed, and alternative sites for microbiological culture are not available, then percutaneous image-guided biopsies can be performed. The expert panel recommends that antibiotics be avoided or discontinued for an optimal period of 2 weeks prior to a biopsy whenever possible. Patients with extensive necrotic decubitus ulcers or other surgical emergencies should not undergo percutaneous image-guided biopsies but rather should be admitted for surgical debridement and intraoperative cultures. Multidisciplinary discussion and approach are crucial to ensure optimal diagnosis and care of patients diagnosed with chronic osteomyelitis.

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.

Investigation and management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: An update for the foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon

Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) poses a significant challenge in the management of diabetic patients, often leading to severe complications and increased morbidity. Effective management of DFO requires a multidisciplinary approach, involving endocrinologists, infectious disease specialists, vascular surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, and wound care experts. Early diagnosis is paramount, facilitated by advanced imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy. Once diagnosed, the treatment strategy hinges on a combination of medical and surgical interventions. Antibiotic therapy, guided by culture results, plays a central role in managing DFO. Tailored regimens targeting the specific pathogens involved are administered, often for prolonged durations. Surgical intervention becomes necessary when conservative measures fall short. Surgical approaches range from minimally invasive procedures, like percutaneous drainage, to more extensive interventions like debridement and bone resection. Prevention of DFO recurrence is equally vital, emphasising glycemic control, meticulous foot care, patient education, monitoring of at-risk signs, revascularization and early intervention when indicated. The management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis mandates a comprehensive strategy that addresses both the infectious and surgical aspects of the condition. A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach ensures timely diagnosis, tailored treatment, and holistic care. Further research into novel therapeutic modalities and long-term outcomes remains essential in refining the management of this complex and debilitating complication of diabetes.

Discitis-osteomyelitis: optimizing results of percutaneous sampling

Vertebral discitis-osteomyelitis is an infection of the spine that involves the intervertebral disc and the adjacent vertebral body but may also extend into the paraspinal and epidural soft tissues. If blood cultures and other culture data fail to identify a causative microorganism, percutaneous sampling is indicated to help guide targeted antimicrobial therapy. Despite limited supporting evidence, withholding antimicrobial therapy for up to 2 weeks is recommended to maximize microbiological yield, although literature supporting this recommendation is limited. During the procedure, technical factors that may improve yield include targeting of paraspinal fluid collections or soft tissue abnormalities for sampling, acquiring multiple core samples if possible, and use of larger gauge needles when available. Repeat sampling may be indicated if initial percutaneous biopsy is negative but should be performed no sooner than 72 h after the initial percutaneous biopsy to ensure adequate time for culture results to return.

Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis in an Uninsured and Underinsured Cohort

Background

Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually treated with prolonged outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Evaluation and treatment of non-antibiotic aspects of DFO (e.g., peripheral artery disease [PAD]) are also recommended. There is limited data regarding OPAT practice patterns and outcomes for DFO.

Methods

Single-center observational study of patients receiving OPAT for DFO in a large United States public hospital between January 2017 and July 2019. We abstracted data regarding microbiology test, antibiotics, clinical outcomes, and non-antibiotic DFO management.

Results

Ninety-six patients were included and some had >1 DFO-OPAT course during the study period (106 DFO-OPAT courses included). No culture was obtained in 40 (38%) of courses. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) was cultured in 15 (14%) and P. aeruginosa in 1 (1%) of DFO-OPAT courses. An antibiotic with MRSA activity (vancomycin or daptomycin) was used in 79 (75%) of courses and a parenteral antibiotic with anti-pseudomonal activity was used in 7 (6%) of courses. Acute kidney injury occurred in 19 (18%) DFO-OPAT courses. An ankle-brachial index measurement was obtained during or 6 months prior to the first DFO-OPAT course for 44 (49%) of patients. Forty-two (44%) patients died or had an amputation within 12 months of their initial hospital discharge.

Conclusions

We found high rates of empiric antibiotic therapy for DFO and low uptake of the non-antibiotic aspects of DFO care. Better implementation of microbiological tests for DFO in addition to stronger integration of infectious disease and non-infectious diseases care could improve DFO outcomes.

Management patterns and outcomes of patients hospitalized with diabetic foot ulcers at one tertiary care hospital

A diabetic foot ulcer is present in approximately 2.4% of hospitalized patients. Care for diabetic foot ulcers is highly variable. We sought to describe care practice patterns and risk factors for poor outcomes for patients hospitalized with a diabetic foot ulcer in our institution, an 894-bed tertiary care academic hospital located in downtown Chicago, IL. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with a diabetic foot ulcer between March 3rd, 2018 and December 31st, 2019. We categorized patients into having an uncomplicated ulcer or a complicated ulcer with cellulitis, wound infection, osteomyelitis, or gangrene. We evaluated rates of diagnostic resource utilization (imaging, cultures, biopsies, and antibiotics) and outcomes of osteomyelitis, amputation, and death. There were 305 patients of interest in the study cohort. A complicated lower extremity ulcer was found in 79% of patients. Amputation was required in 25% of patients, 21% were readmitted, and 13% died. Imaging was obtained in less than 50% of all patients, and in 60% or less of those with osteomyelitis. Bone biopsies were rarely acquired. Empiric antibiotics were prescribed in 77% of patients with osteomyelitis. Male, Black or African-American patients, and those with high Charlson score had the highest risk of poor outcomes. Care practices for patients hospitalized with diabetic foot ulcers were highly variable. Future interventions should target standardization to improve outcomes, with particular attention to health inequities as vulnerable populations have a higher risk of poor outcomes.

Role of bone biopsy and deep tissue culture for antibiotic stewardship in diabetic foot osteomyelitis

OBJECTIVES

To describe organisms most frequently identified on bone biopsy or deep tissue culture and determine how culture data impacted antibiotic management in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients admitted with a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) between 3 March 2018 and 31 December 2019 and selected for patients diagnosed with infectious osteomyelitis (OM) of the lower extremity. We stratified patients by whether a bone biopsy or deep tissue culture was obtained and compared rates of antibiotic utilization with chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Of 305 patients with a DFU, 152 (50%) were clinically diagnosed with DFO. Forty-seven patients received 41 deep tissue cultures and 29 bone biopsy cultures for a total of 70 cultures. Of 45 (64%) positive cultures, 36 (80%) had Gram-positive organisms and 19 (42%) had Gram-negative organisms. MDR organisms were isolated in 7 (15%) patients. Culture data resulted in antibiotic changes in 41 (87%) patients. Therapy was narrowed in 29 (62%) patients and broadened due to inadequate empirical coverage in 4 (9%) patients. Culture data from 18 (40%) patients showed susceptibility to an oral treatment regimen with high bioavailability. There was no significant difference in rates of antibiotic utilization at discharge between patients who underwent bone biopsy or deep tissue culture relative to those who did not (77% versus 75%, P = 0.86), although less MRSA coverage was used (34% versus 50%, P = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with DFO, deep tissue and bone biopsy cultures were infrequently obtained but resulted in targeted therapy changes in most patients. Culture data usually allowed for narrowing of antibiotics but revealed inadequate empirical coverage in a subset of patients.

What Is the Best Oral Therapy for Staph aureus Osteomyelitis?

Best Oral Therapy for Staph aureus OsteomyelitisA 50-year-old patient with diabetes mellitus has a plantar ulcer at the base of the first metatarsal. Cortical erosions are noted; bone biopsy culture yields Staphylococcus aureus susceptible to methicillin, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, doxycycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, linezolid, and rifampin. The plan is for 4 weeks of antibiotic treatment. Which antibiotic should be prescribed?

Multifaceted Strategy Improves Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized with a Diabetic Foot Infection

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are associated with major morbidity, reduced quality of life and increased mortality. Osteomyelitis is a leading cause of lower-extremity amputation in diabetic patients. We aimed to examine whether a multifaceted strategy for treating hospitalized patients with a DFI effectively influenced microbiological culture results and outcomes. A retrospective cohort-study in a 1100-bed, tertiary-care university hospital was conducted. Adult patients with a DFI admitted to the orthopedics department between 2015 and 2019 were included. During the pre-intervention period (2015-2016), one general orthopedic department was in operation. In the post-intervention period (2017-2019), a second department was created with a designated "complicated wound unit". The multifaceted strategy included revising local guidelines for DFI culturing emphasizing bone cultures, correct sample handling, and adjusting antibiotic treatment to culture results. Additionally, a weekly multidisciplinary-team grand round was instigated and post-discharge outpatient follow-up was scheduled. 652 patients with DFIs were included; 101 during the pre-intervention period and 551 during the post-intervention period. Compared to the pre-intervention, during the post-intervention period mainly bone or deep-tissue cultures were performed (9.7% vs. 98.2%, P < 0.001). Bacteriology cultures in the pre-intervention versus post-intervention period revealed: among staphylococcus isolates, fewer methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus detected (20.4% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.010); within Enterobacteriaceae isolates, fewer extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing bacteria detected (51.6% vs. 23.6%, P < 0.001); a decrease in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates (28% vs. 10.6%, P < 0.001) and an increase in anaerobic bacterial isolates (0 vs. 11.1%, P < 0.001). On multivariate regression, the post-intervention period (ie multifaceted strategy) was a protective measure against readmissions (P = 0.007 OR 0.50 95% CI 0.30-0.82). We conclude that our interventive multifaceted strategy led to accurate bacterial diagnosis, de-escalation of antibiotic treatment and readmission reduction.

Reliability and Safety of Bedside Blind Bone Biopsy Performed by a Diabetologist for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

OBJECTIVE

Bone biopsy (BB) performed by a surgeon or an interventional radiologist is recommended for suspicion of osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). To facilitate its practice, we developed a procedure allowing bedside blind bone biopsy (B4) by a diabetologist.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a three-step observational study consisting of a feasibility and safety phase (phase 1) to assess the success and side effects of B4, a validity phase (phase 2) to compare DFU outcomes between positive (B4+) and negative (B4-) bone cultures, and a performance phase (phase 3) to compare B4 with the conventional surgical or radiological procedure basic bone biopsy (B3). Primary end points were the presence of bone tissue (phase 1) and complete DFU healing with exclusive medical treatment at 12 months (phases 2 and 3).

RESULTS

In phase 1, 37 consecutive patients with clinical and/or radiological suspicion of DFU osteomyelitis underwent B4. Bone tissue was collected in all patients with few side effects. In phase 2, a B4+ bone culture was found in 40 of 79 (50.6%) participants. Among B4+ patients, complete wound healing after treatment was 57.5%. No statistical difference was observed with patients with B4- bone culture not treated with antibiotics (71.8%, P = 0.18). In phase 3, the proportion of patients with positive BB was lower in B4 (40 of 79, 50.6%) than in B3 (34 of 44, 77.3%, P < 0.01). However, complete healing was similar (64.6% vs. 54.6%, P = 0.28). No difference in rate of culture contamination was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

B4 is a simple, safe, and efficient procedure for the diagnosis of DFU osteomyelitis with a similar proportion of healing to conventional BB.

Optimal microbiological sampling for the diagnosis of osteoarticular infection

Infection is a dire complication afflicting every field of orthopaedics and traumatology. If specific clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters are present, infection is often assumed even in the absence of microbiological confirmation. However, apart from confirming infection, knowing the exact infecting pathogen(s) and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns is paramount to help guide treatment. Every effort should therefore be undertaken with that goal in mind.Not all microbiological findings carry the same relevance, and knowing exactly how and where a sample was collected is key. Several different sampling techniques are available, and one must be aware of both advantages and limitations. Microbiological sampling alternatives in some of the most common clinical scenarios such as native and prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis and fracture-related infections, spinal and diabetic foot infections will be discussed.Orthopaedic surgeons should also be aware of basic laboratory sample processing techniques as they have a direct impact on the way specimens should be dealt with and transported to the laboratory. Only by knowing these basic principles will surgeons be able to participate in the multidisciplinary discussion and decision making around how to interpret microbiological findings in each specific patient. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:390-398. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210011.