Microbiological evaluation of resection margins of the infected diabetic foot ulcer

Controversial Issues Regarding Positive Bone Margins in Surgery for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Pilot Study

Obtaining clean margins in patients who undergo surgical treatment for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is recommended. We hypothesize that the rate of recurrence of the infection is not associated with positive margins, even when using a short-term duration of postoperative antibiotic treatment. We conducted a retrospective pilot study of patients who underwent surgery for DFO confirmed by histopathological analysis of the resected bone from August 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020. Bone samples were taken from the proximal margins to be studied by microbiology and histopathology. Twenty-five (89.3%) patients underwent conservative surgery, and 3 (10.7%) patients underwent a minor amputation. After surgery, the antibiotics were stopped in 19 (67.9%) patients and continued in 9 (32.1%) patients for a median period of 4 days. The microbiology of the bone margins was positive in 20 (71.4%) cases, but the histopathology of the bone margins was positive in just 7 (25%) cases. Recurrence of the infection was detected in 3 (10.7%) patients. Seventeen (68%) patients with microbiological-positive margins did not have a recurrence of infection, while 3 (100%) patients had a recurrence of infection (P = .53). Six (24%) patients among those with histopathological-positive margins did not have a recurrence of infection, and1 (33.3%) patient had a recurrence of infection (P = 1). The recurrence of infection was low and always detected in soft tissues, including the cases with a histopathological-positive bone margin. Postoperative antibiotics were administered for a short period of time and not based on the analysis of bone margins.

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.

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.