Long-Term Complications after Surgical or Medical Treatment of Predominantly Forefoot Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: 1 Year Follow Up

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.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

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.

Variables That Could Influence Healing Time in Patients with Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

AIM

To compare the healing time in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis according to the presence or absence of clinical signs of infection, variation of blood parameters, the presence of different radiological signs, and the treatment received for the management of osteomyelitis.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was carried out in a specialised Diabetic Foot Unit between November 2014 and November 2018. A total of 116 patients with osteomyelitis were included in the study (treated by either a surgical or medical approach). During the baseline visit, we assessed the diagnosis of osteomyelitis, demographic characteristics and medical history, vascular and neurological examination, clinical signs of infection, increased blood parameters, radiological signs of osteomyelitis, and the treatment to manage osteomyelitis. We analysed the association between the presence of clinical signs of infection, variation of blood parameters, presence of radiological signs, and treatment received for management of osteomyelitis with the healing time.

RESULTS

The mean time to ulcer healing was 15.8 ± 9.7 weeks. Concerning healing times, we did not find an association with the presence of clinical signs of infection or with the increase in blood parameters, except in the case of eosinophils, which with higher values appear to increase the healing time (U = 66, z = -2.880, p = 0.004). Likewise, no relationship has been found between healing time and the appearance of the different radiological signs of osteomyelitis, nor depending on the treatment administered for the management of osteomyelitis.

CONCLUSION

High levels of eosinophils are associated with a longer healing time of diabetic foot ulcers complicated with osteomyelitis, finding no other factors related to increased healing time.

Could X-ray Predict Long-term Complications in Patients with Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the association between radiologic changes on plain X-rays in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis and the development of complications at the 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study was conducted involving 115 patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. X-ray features that were evaluated during 1-year follow-up visits included affected bone marrow, active periosteal reaction, sequestrum, cortical disruption, and other types of signs. Researchers analyzed the association between the presence of X-ray changes and complication development, such as bone or soft tissue infections, ulcer recurrence, reulceration, amputation, death, and other diabetic foot disease-related events.

RESULTS

During follow-up, of 115 patients included in the study, 33 patients (28.7%) showed radiologic changes, and 85 (73.9%) developed complications. The presence of radiologic changes after ulcer healing had a significant association with complication development during the 1-year follow-up in addition to those found at different follow-up visits. Patients who showed radiologic changes had higher percentages of complications during the 1-year follow-up, and patients without radiologic changes had lower percentages of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of radiologic changes is related to the development of complications in patients who suffer from diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

Are Digital Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis Useful and Safe Surgical Techniques for the Management of Patients with Diabetic Foot?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and compare the development of short- and long-term complications in patients with diabetic foot after digital arthroplasty or arthrodesis.

METHODS

The authors reviewed patient records from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients were treated by digital arthroplasty or arthrodesis to correct toe deformity (elective or prophylactic surgery), achieve ulcer healing in toes (curative surgery), or manage toe infection (emergent surgery). During 1-year follow-up, researchers registered short- and long-term complications. Researchers analyzed the association between the type of surgery and the development of short- and long-term complications.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients (83.0%) received arthroplasty, and nine (17.0%) received arthrodesis. The mean time to heal from ulcers was 5.2 ± 5.2 weeks. A significant association was observed between arthrodesis and the development of long-term complications (P = .044; odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-27.2). No differences were observed between type of surgery and short- or long-term complications. Moreover, both short- and long-term complications were related to longer time to heal (respectively, 7.6 ± 6.0 vs 2.1 ± 0.5 weeks, P < .001; and 6.3 ± 6.2 vs 4.2 ± 4.0 weeks, P = .039).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital arthroplasty or arthrodesis are good options for managing patients with diabetic foot who require digital deformity correction to achieve digital ulcer healing or management of diabetic foot infection in phalanges.