Added value of MRI to X-ray in guiding the extent of surgical resection in diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis: a review of pathologically proven, surgically treated cases

Diagnostic imaging of the diabetic foot: an EANM evidence-based guidance

PURPOSE

Consensus on the choice of the most accurate imaging strategy in diabetic foot infective and non-infective complications is still lacking. This document provides evidence-based recommendations, aiming at defining which imaging modality should be preferred in different clinical settings.

METHODS

This working group includes 8 nuclear medicine physicians appointed by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), 3 radiologists and 3 clinicians (one diabetologist, one podiatrist and one infectious diseases specialist) selected for their expertise in diabetic foot. The latter members formulated some clinical questions that are not completely covered by current guidelines. These questions were converted into statements and addressed through a systematic analysis of available literature by using the PICO (Population/Problem-Intervention/Indicator-Comparator-Outcome) strategy. Each consensus statement was scored for level of evidence and for recommendation grade, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria.

RESULTS

Nine clinical questions were formulated by clinicians and used to provide 7 evidence-based recommendations: (1) A patient with a positive probe-to-bone test, positive plain X-rays and elevated ESR should be treated for presumptive osteomyelitis (OM). (2) Advanced imaging with MRI and WBC scintigraphy, or [18F]FDG PET/CT, should be considered when it is needed to better evaluate the location, extent or severity of the infection, in order to plan more tailored treatment. (3) In a patient with suspected OM, positive PTB test but negative plain X-rays, advanced imaging with MRI or WBC scintigraphy + SPECT/CT, or with [18F]FDG PET/CT, is needed to accurately assess the extent of the infection. (4) There are no evidence-based data to definitively prefer one imaging modality over the others for detecting OM or STI in fore- mid- and hind-foot. MRI is generally the first advanced imaging modality to be performed. In case of equivocal results, radiolabelled WBC imaging or [18F]FDG PET/CT should be used to detect OM or STI. (5) MRI is the method of choice for diagnosing or excluding Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy; [18F]FDG PET/CT can be used as an alternative. (6) If assessing whether a patient with a Charcot foot has a superimposed infection, however, WBC scintigraphy may be more accurate than [18F]FDG PET/CT in differentiating OM from Charcot arthropathy. (7) Whenever possible, microbiological or histological assessment should be performed to confirm the diagnosis. (8) Consider appealing to an additional imaging modality in a patient with persisting clinical suspicion of infection, but negative imaging.

CONCLUSION

These practical recommendations highlight, and should assist clinicians in understanding, the role of imaging in the diagnostic workup of diabetic foot complications.

Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery 2023 guidelines on the diabetic foot

The diabetic foot interacts with anatomical, vascular, and neurological factors that challenge clinical practice. This study aimed to compile the primary scientific evidence based on a review of the main guidelines, in addition to articles published on the Embase, Lilacs, and PubMed platforms. The European Society of Cardiology system was used to develop recommendation classes and levels of evidence. The themes were divided into six chapters (Chapter 1 - Prevention of foot ulcers in people with diabetes; Chapter 2 - Pressure relief from foot ulcers in people with diabetes; Chapter 3 -Classifications of diabetic foot ulcers; Chapter 4 - Foot and peripheral artery disease; Chapter 5 - Infection and the diabetic foot; Chapter 6 - Charcot's neuroarthropathy). This version of the Diabetic Foot Guidelines presents essential recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with diabetic foot, offering an objective guide for medical practice.

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.

Imaging of the Diabetic Foot

Diabetic foot complications are increasingly prevalent in the world, leading to significant morbidity and driving up associated health care costs. Complex pathophysiology and suboptimal specificity of current imaging modalities have made diagnosis challenging, mainly in the evaluation of superimposed foot infection to underlying arthropathy or other marrow lesions. Recent advances in radiology and nuclear medicine have the potential to streamline the assessment of diabetic foot complications. But we must be aware of the specific strengths and weaknesses of each modality, and their applications. This review offers a comprehensive approach to the spectrum of diabetic foot complications and their imaging appearances in conventional and advanced imaging studies, including optimal technical considerations for each technique. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are highlighted, illustrating their complementary role to conventional MRI, in particular their potential impact in avoiding additional studies.

[Technical Orthopedics - Chronic Diabetic Foot Wounds]

Technical Orthopedics - Chronic Diabetic Foot Wounds Abstract: Chronic foot wounds are a very common and a growing problem. This review focuses on the treatment and the prophylaxis of diabetic foot ulcers from the perspective of technical orthopedics. Diabetic foot ulcers are of great importance for those affected, in particular because of the risk of infections and resulting amputations. With a good prophylaxis and consistent treatment, these complications can often be avoided.

Establishment of a reliable in-vivo model of implant-associated infection to investigate innovative treatment options

The increasing number of implant-associated infections and of multiresistant pathogens is a major problem in the daily routine. In the field of osteomyelitis, it is difficult to manage a valid clinical study because of multiple influencing factors. Therefore, models of osteomyelitis with a simulation of the pathophysiology to evaluate treatment options for implant-associated infections are necessary. The aim of this study is to develop a standardized and reproducible osteomyelitis model in-vivo to improve treatment options. This study analyses the influence of a post-infectious implant exchange one week after infection and the infection progress afterward in combination with a systemic versus a local antibiotic treatment in-vivo. Therefore, the implant exchange, the exchange to a local drug-delivery system with gentamicin, and the implant removal are examined. Furthermore, the influence of an additional systemic antibiotic therapy is evaluated. An in-vivo model concerning the implant exchange is established that analyzes clinic, radiologic, microbiologic, histologic, and immunohistochemical diagnostics to obtain detailed evaluation and clinical reproducibility. Our study shows a clear advantage of the combined local and systemic antibiotic treatment in contrast to the implant removal and to a non-combined antibiotic therapy. Group genta/syst. showed the lowest infection rate with a percentage of 62.5% concerning microbiologic analysis, which is in accordance with the immunohistochemical, cytochemical, histologic, and radiologic analysis. Our in-vivo rat model has shown valid and reproducible results, which will lead to further investigations regarding treatment options and influencing factors concerning the therapy of osteomyelitis and implant-associated infections.

MRI and Clinical Risk Indicators for Osteomyelitis

Introduction. The sensitivity and specificity for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of osteomyelitis is 90% and 80%, respectively; findings include bone marrow edema, T2-weighted image hyperintensity (HI-T2WI), T1-weighted image confluent signal(CS-T1WI), and cortical erosion (CE). The goal is to determine which risk factors and MRI findings are most predictive of osteomyelitis. Materials and Methods. After institutional review board approval, records of patients who underwent bone biopsy of the foot/ankle between 2015 and 2017 were reviewed. Diagnosis was determined histologically. Blinded MRI review identified indicators of osteomyelitis: HI-T2WI, CS-T1WI, ulcer depth, and CE. Bivariate and multivariate regression determined an association between osteomyelitis and radiographic indicators. Results. Of 59 subjects, 41 (69.5%) and 18 (30.5%) had pathologic evidence of osteomyelitis or were indeterminate. The sensitivity and specificity by radiologist diagnosis was 51.4% and 91.7%, respectively. Diabetes (relative risk [RR]=2.9, 95% CI = 1.0.8-7.77, P = .034), CS-T1WI (RR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.23-2.20, P < .001), and CE (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.34-2.28, P < .001) were risk factors on bivariate analysis. Ulcer depth demonstrated a trend toward statistical significance. Diabetes (RR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.00-5.69, P = .049) and CE (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.27-2.37, P < .001) were independent risk factors on multivariate analysis. Discussion. Diabetes and CS-T1WI are independent risk factors for pedal osteomyelitis. Patients with diabetes, CS-T1WI, and CE should be evaluated for osteomyelitis with recommendation for bone biopsy in appropriate clinical settings.Levels of Evidence: Level III Retrospective Comparative Study.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle and foot

This article reviews the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of the normal anatomy and various pathologic conditions of the ankle and foot commonly encountered in clinical practice. The spectrum of entities discussed includes osseous and osteochondral injuries, ligamentous injuries, common traumatic and degenerative tendon pathology, abnormalities of transverse tarsal joint (Chopart) and tarsometatarsal joint (Lisfranc) complexes, pathological conditions affecting capsuloligamentous structures of the great toe and lesser toes, as well as pedal infection, with a focus on diabetic osteomyelitis and neuropathic osteoarthropathy.

Imaging in Chronic Wound Diagnostics

Significance: Chronic wounds affect millions of patients worldwide, placing a huge burden on health care resources. Although significant progress has been made in the development of wound treatments, very few advances have been made in wound diagnosis. Recent Advances: Standard imaging methods like computed tomography, single-photon emission computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, terahertz imaging, and ultrasound imaging have been widely employed in wound diagnostics. A number of noninvasive optical imaging modalities like optical coherence tomography, near-infrared spectroscopy, laser Doppler imaging, spatial frequency domain imaging, digital camera imaging, and thermal and fluorescence imaging have emerged over the years. Critical Issues: While standard diagnostic wound imaging modalities provide valuable information, they cannot account for dynamic changes in the wound environment. In addition, they lack the capability to predict the healing outcome. Thus, there remains a pressing need for more efficient methods that can not only indicate the current state of the wound but also help determine whether the wound is on track to heal normally. Future Directions: Many imaging probes have been fabricated and shown to provide real-time assessment of tissue microenvironment and inflammatory responses in vivo. These probes have been demonstrated to noninvasively detect various changes in the wound environment, which include tissue pH, reactive oxygen species, fibrin deposition, matrix metalloproteinase production, and macrophage accumulation. This review summarizes the creation of these probes and their potential implications in wound monitoring.

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.