Search Results (8)

Background: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) constitutes a severe and prevalent complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). Individuals afflicted with DM exhibit an elevated risk for DFO development, attributable to a confluence of factors, including peripheral neuropathy, compromised circulation, and impaired immune function. Timely diagnosis and appropriate therapeutic intervention are paramount. In recent years, alongside the ablative approach, the feasibility of substituting compromised bone with a bone substitute has emerged. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed resorbable bone grafting procedures performed at our third-level center for the care of people with diabetes between 2019 and 2024. Forty-nine patients were included in this. The median follow-up period was 13 months (Q1 7, Q3 20). Results: At follow-up, 34 patients (69%) had achieved healing, with a median healing time of 2.3 months (Q1 1.5, Q3 5). Lesion location significantly influenced healing outcomes, with forefoot and midfoot lesions demonstrating an 86% healing rate compared to 50% for hindfoot lesions. Eleven patients (22%) experienced infectious relapse after a median of 1 month (Q1 0.7, Q3 2.9). An analysis of different bone substitutes did not reveal significant differences in terms of healing among the various products and between the presence or absence of a local antibiotic. Conclusions: Bone substitute implantation offers an additional conservative strategy for managing DFO. Healing rates are significantly higher for forefoot and midfoot lesions, suggesting that further research is needed to improve outcomes in hindfoot osteomyelitis. Selection of the most effective bone substitute requires further studies. Full article

This study analyzed the influence of diabetic nephropathy on the healing prognosis after conservative surgery in diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). A retrospective observational study was carried out between January 2021 and December 2022 and involved 278 outpatients with a diagnosis of DFO at a specialized diabetic foot unit, including 74 (26.62%) patients with DN (group 2) and 204 (73.38%) patients without DN (group 1). There were 266 (95.70%) ulcers on the forefoot, 8 (2.90%) on the midfoot, and 4 (1.45%) on the hindfoot (p = 0.992). The healing rates were 85.1% (n = 63) for group 2 and 81.3% (n = 165) for group 1 (p = 0.457). When exploring the influence of DN on the risk of delayed ulcer healing, the results did not show a significant effect [12 (6; 28) weeks among patients with DN vs. 12 (6; 21) weeks among patients without DN; p = 0.576]. No significant differences were observed in complications, with one (2.59%) death occurring in group 1 (p = 0.296) and three minor amputations being performed in both groups [two (5.13%) amputations in group 1 vs. one amputation (9.09%) in group 2; p = 0.217]. Bone cultures were performed for a total of 190 patients (133 in group 1 and 57 in group 2). Of these, 176 positive bone cultures were isolated: 71 positive bone cultures (57.7%) were monomicrobial cultures in group 1, with 30 (56.6%) in group 2. There were 52 (42.3%) that had at least two microorganisms in group 1, and 23 (43.4%) in group 2 (p = 0.890). The most frequently prescribed oral antibiotic was amoxicillin/clavulanate (43.89%), followed by levofloxacin (28.4%), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (14.7%). This study shows that DN does not have a significant influence on the healing prognosis of patients with DFO after conservative surgery. Full article

Along with the increasing global burden of diabetes, diabetic foot infections (DFI) and diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) remain major challenges for patients and society. Despite progress in the development of prominent international guidelines, the optimal medical treatment for DFI and DFO remains unclear as to whether local antibiotics, that is, topical agents and local delivery systems, should be used alone or concomitant to conventional systemic antibiotics. To better inform clinicians in this evolving field, we performed a narrative review and summarized key relevant observational studies and clinical trials of non-prophylactic local antibiotics for the treatment of DFI and DFO, both alone and in combination with systemic antibiotics. We searched PubMed for studies published between January 2000 and October 2022, identified 388 potentially eligible records, and included 19 studies. Our findings highlight that evidence for adding local antibiotic delivery systems to standard DFO treatment remains limited. Furthermore, we found that so far, local antibiotic interventions have mainly targeted forefoot DFO, although there is marked variation in the design of the included studies. Suggestive evidence emerging from observational studies underscores that the addition of local agents to conventional systemic antibiotics might help to shorten the clinical healing time and overall recovery rates in infected diabetic foot ulcers, although the effectiveness of local antibiotics as a standalone approach remains overlooked. In conclusion, despite the heterogeneous body of evidence, the possibility that the addition of local antibiotics to conventional systemic treatment may improve outcomes in DFI and DFO cannot be ruled out. Antibiotic stewardship principles call for further research to elucidate the potential benefits of local antibiotics alone and in combination with conventional systemic antibiotics for the treatment of DFI and DFO. Full article

Forefoot osteomyelitis can be an extremely challenging problem in orthopedic surgery. Unlike conventional methods, such as amputations, antibiotic impregnated cement space (ACS) was recently introduced and perceived as a substitute for amputation. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical features between diabetic and non-diabetic groups and to evaluate the efficacy of ACS in the treatment of forefoot osteomyelitis, by identifying the clinical characteristics of ACS. We inserted ACS into the forefoot osteomyelitis patients and regularly checked up on them, then analyzed the clinical features of the patients and failure reasons, if ACS had to be removed. Average survival rate of ACS was 60% (21 out of 35 cases) and main failure reason was recurrence of infection. There was no significant clinical difference between diabetic and non-diabetic groups. We concluded that ACS could be a possible way of avoiding amputation if infection is under control. ACS seems to be an innovative method with promising results for foot osteomyelitis, but widely accepted indications need to be agreed upon. Full article

Aim: To compare long-term complications according to the treatment received for management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (surgical or medical) at 1 year follow up. Design and Participants: A prospective observational study was conducted involving 116 patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. The patients received surgical or medical treatment based on the principles described in the literature. To register the development of a complication, both groups of treatments were followed-up 1 year after the ulcer had healed. Results: Ninety-six (82.8%) patients received surgical treatment and 20 (17.2%) medical treatment. No differences were found in the time to healing between both groups of treatment, 15.7 ± 9.2 weeks in the surgical group versus 16.4 ± 12.1 weeks in the medical group; p = 0.103. During follow up, 85 (73.3%) patients developed complications without differences between both groups, 68 (70.8%) in the surgical group versus 17 (85%) in the medical group (p = 0.193). The most common complication in both groups was re-ulceration. We did not observe significant differences comparing complication-free time survival between both treatments (p = 0.665). Conclusion: The onset of complications after healing in patients who suffered from diabetic foot osteomyelitis was not associated with the treatment received. Surgical and medical approaches to the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis produced similar results in long-term follow up. Full article

Background and Objectives: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) can be difficult to treat and securing optimal clinical outcomes requires a multidisciplinary approach involving a wide variety of medical, surgical and other health care professionals, as well as the patient. Results of studies conducted in the past few years have allowed experts to formulate guidelines that can improve clinical outcomes. Material and Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature on treat- ment of DFO, with an emphasis on studies published in the last two years, especially regarding antimicrobial therapies and surgical approached to treatment of DFO, supplemented by our own extensive clinical and research experience in this field. Results: Major amputations were once com- mon for DFO but, with improved diagnostic and surgical techniques, “conservative” surgery (foot- sparing, resecting only the infected and necrotic bone) is becoming commonplace, especially for forefoot infections. Traditional antibiotic therapy, which has been administered predominantly in- travenously and frequently for several months, can often be replaced by appropriately selected oral antibiotic regimens following only a brief (or even no) parenteral therapy, and given for no more than 6 weeks. Based on ongoing studies, the recommended duration of treatment may soon be even shorter, especially for cases in which a substantial portion of the infected bone has been resected. Using the results of cultures (preferably of bone specimens) and antimicrobial stewardship princi- ples allows clinicians to select evidence-based antibiotic regimens, often of a limited pathogen spec- trum. Intra-osseous antimicrobial and surgical approaches to treatment are also evolving in light of ongoing research. Conclusions: In this narrative, evidenced-based review, taking consideration of principles of antimicrobial stewardship and good surgical practice, we have highlighted the recent literature and offered practical, state-of-the-art advice on the antibiotic and surgical management of DFO. Full article

Diabetic foot ulcers, complicated by osteomyelitis, can be treated by surgical resection, dead space filling with gentamicin-loaded calcium sulphate-hydroxyapatite (CaS-HA) biocomposite, and closure of soft tissues and skin. To assess the feasibility of this treatment regimen, we conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients after failed conventional treatments. From 13 hospitals we included 64 patients with forefoot (n = 41 (64%)), midfoot (n = 14 (22%)), or hindfoot (n = 9 (14%)) ulcers complicated by osteomyelitis. Median follow-up was 43 (interquartile range, 20–61) weeks. We observed wound healing in 54 patients (84%) and treatment success (wound healing without ulcer recurrence) in 42 patients (66%). Treatment failures (no wound healing or ulcer recurrence) led to minor amputations in four patients (6%) and major amputations in seven patients (11%). Factors associated with treatment failures in univariable Cox regression analysis were gentamicin-resistant osteomyelitis (hazard ratio (HR), 3.847; 95%-confidence interval (CI), 1.065–13.899), hindfoot ulcers (HR, 3.624; 95%-CI, 1.187–11.060) and surgical procedures with gentamicin-loaded CaS-HA biocomposite that involved minor amputations (HR, 3.965; 95%-CI, 1.608–9.777). In this study of patients with diabetic foot ulcers, complicated by osteomyelitis, surgical treatment with gentamicin-loaded CaS-HA biocomposite was feasible and successful in 66% of patients. A prospective trial of this treatment regimen, based on a uniform treatment protocol, is required. Full article