Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of diabetic foot with suspected osteomyelitis

Systematic review: investigating the added diagnostic value of gadolinium contrast agents for osteomyelitis in the appendicular skeleton

OBJECTIVE

Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone marrow. MRI with gadolinium-based contrast is frequently performed for cases of suspected osteomyelitis. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced vs non-contrast-enhanced MRI for osteomyelitis in the appendicular skeleton.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MRI in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2000 to March 2020. There were 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review for a total of 1095 patients. Analytic methods were based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Evidence was evaluated using the STARD criteria for evaluation of completeness and transparency of reporting.

RESULTS

For diagnosing osteomyelitis in the appendicular skeleton, MRI with gadolinium-based contrast has 89% sensitivity (95% CI, 86-92%), 79% specificity (95% CI, 75-83%), and 90% overall diagnostic accuracy ([SE] = 0.03). For diagnosing osteomyelitis in the appendicular skeleton, MRI without gadolinium-based contrast has a 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87-96%), 89% specificity (95% CI, 84-93%), and 96% overall diagnostic accuracy ([SE] = 0.03). The median score of included studies was 85% utilizing the STARD criteria with excellent interobserver agreement of 83.4%. Limitations included small sample size of studies, with retrospective designs.

CONCLUSION

No evidence was found to suggest an added diagnostic value of gadolinium contrast for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the appendicular skeleton. For routine cases of suspected non-spinal osteomyelitis, non-contrast MRI of the area of interest is the next most appropriate study after radiographs.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: Imaging Accuracy in Biopsy-Proven Disease

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the recommended diagnostic imaging technique for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). The gold standard to diagnose osteomyelitis is bone biopsy with a positive culture and/or histopathology finding consistent with osteomyelitis. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of MRI readings in biopsy-proven diabetic foot osteomyelitis with a second read done by a blinded, expert musculoskeletal radiologist. A retrospective chart review of 166 patients who received a bone biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of a suspected DFO at a large county hospital between 2010 and 2014. A second, blinded musculoskeletal radiologist reviewed the images for accuracy, once the official reading was recorded. Imaging results were correlated with the final diagnosis of osteomyelitis determined by bone biopsy. In 17 of 58 patients (29.3%), the diagnosis of DFO by MRI was not confirmed by bone biopsy. There were 12 false positives and 5 false negatives. After the second expert read, there were 5 false positives and 4 false negatives. The overall accuracy was 84% for the second read. Our study demonstrated results comparable to the previously reported meta-analysis findings. There is a clear variation on the read of MRI that could lead to an incorrect diagnosis of DFO. An integrated approach with evaluation of clinical findings, communication with radiologist about the MRI results when indicated, and bone biopsy is warranted for accurate diagnosis management of DFO.

Imaging tests for the detection of osteomyelitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone. Medical imaging tests, such as radiography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET), are often used to diagnose osteomyelitis.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy, inter-rater reliability and implementation of imaging tests to diagnose osteomyelitis.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic review of imaging tests to diagnose osteomyelitis. We searched MEDLINE and other databases from inception to July 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2 [quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (version 2)]. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using bivariate regression models. Imaging tests were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the location and nature of the suspected osteomyelitis. Studies of children, inter-rater reliability and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Eighty-one studies were included (diagnostic accuracy: 77 studies; inter-rater reliability: 11 studies; implementation: one study; some studies were included in two reviews). One-quarter of diagnostic accuracy studies were rated as being at a high risk of bias. In adults, MRI had high diagnostic accuracy [95.6% sensitivity, 95% confidence interval (CI) 92.4% to 97.5%; 80.7% specificity, 95% CI 70.8% to 87.8%]. PET also had high accuracy (85.1% sensitivity, 95% CI 71.5% to 92.9%; 92.8% specificity, 95% CI 83.0% to 97.1%), as did SPECT (95.1% sensitivity, 95% CI 87.8% to 98.1%; 82.0% specificity, 95% CI 61.5% to 92.8%). There was similar diagnostic performance with MRI, PET and SPECT. Scintigraphy (83.6% sensitivity, 95% CI 71.8% to 91.1%; 70.6% specificity, 57.7% to 80.8%), computed tomography (69.7% sensitivity, 95% CI 40.1% to 88.7%; 90.2% specificity, 95% CI 57.6% to 98.4%) and radiography (70.4% sensitivity, 95% CI 61.6% to 77.8%; 81.5% specificity, 95% CI 69.6% to 89.5%) all had generally inferior diagnostic accuracy. Technetium-99m hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime white blood cell scintigraphy (87.3% sensitivity, 95% CI 75.1% to 94.0%; 94.7% specificity, 95% CI 84.9% to 98.3%) had higher diagnostic accuracy, similar to that of PET or MRI. There was no evidence that diagnostic accuracy varied by scan location or cause of osteomyelitis, although data on many scan locations were limited. Diagnostic accuracy in diabetic foot patients was similar to the overall results. Only three studies in children were identified; results were too limited to draw any conclusions. Eleven studies evaluated inter-rater reliability. MRI had acceptable inter-rater reliability. We found only one study on test implementation and no evidence on patient preferences or cost-effectiveness of imaging tests for osteomyelitis.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies included < 50 participants and were poorly reported. There was limited evidence for children, ultrasonography and on clinical factors other than diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteomyelitis is reliably diagnosed by MRI, PET and SPECT. No clear reason to prefer one test over the other in terms of diagnostic accuracy was identified. The wider availability of MRI machines, and the fact that MRI does not expose patients to harmful ionising radiation, may mean that MRI is preferable in most cases. Diagnostic accuracy does not appear to vary with the potential cause of osteomyelitis or with the body part scanned. Considerable uncertainty remains over the diagnostic accuracy of imaging tests in children. Studies of diagnostic accuracy in children, particularly using MRI and ultrasound, are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068511.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Imaging for detection of osteomyelitis in people with diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone which can occur in people with diabetic foot ulcers. It can be diagnosed using X-rays, ultrasound, scintigraphy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET).

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging tests to diagnose osteomyelitis in people with diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases were searched to July 2018. Risk of bias was evaluated. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using bivariate meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Eight studies were at high risk of bias MRI had high diagnostic accuracy (22 studies: 96.4 % sensitivity (95 % CI 90.7-98.7); 83.8 % specificity (76.0-89.5)). PET scans also had high accuracy (6 studies: 84.3 % sensitivity (52.8-96.3); 92.8 % specificity (75.7-98.2)), and possibly also SPECT, but with few studies (3 studies: 95.6 % sensitivity (76.0-99.3); 55.1 % specificity (19.3-86.3)). Scintigraphy (17 studies: 84.2 % sensitivity (76.8-89.6); 67.7 % specificity (56.2-77.4)), and X-rays (16 studies: 61.9 % sensitivity (50.5-72.1); 78.3 % specificity (62.9-88.5)) had generally inferior diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI and PET both reliably diagnose osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcer patients. SPECT may also have good diagnostic accuracy, although evidence is limited. This review confirms most current guidelines, showing that MRI may be the preferable test in most cases, given its wider availability and the lack of potentially harmful ionising radiation.

Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

Although bone biopsy has historically been considered the "gold standard" or "standard reference" for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, some contemporary investigations have provided evidence against this as a single diagnostic test and in support of a combination of clinical, laboratory, and radiographic findings. The objective of this investigation was to measure the level of agreement between several commonly used forms of diagnostic testing for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A retrospective chart review was performed of 50 consecutive patients admitted to a single tertiary healthcare center with the documented performance of 1) a clinical probe-to-bone test on hospital admission; 2) plain film radiographs prior to any surgical intervention; 3) magnetic resonance imaging prior to any surgical intervention; and an intraoperative excisional bone debridement performed, with samples sent for both 4) histologic analysis and 5) microbiologic analysis. A frequency count of agreement among these 5 tests was performed, and the interobserver (or inter-test) agreement was measured using the kappa statistic. We observed low levels of inter-test agreement between the 5 diagnostic tests (range 42.0%-62.0%), and levels of chance-corrected agreement were well below what would be considered appropriate for a "gold standard" or "standard reference." Levels of the kappa statistic ranged from 0.0 to 0.220, with most inter-test comparisons falling in the "poor agreement" and "slight agreement" interpretation ranges. The highest level of agreement occurred between the plain film radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (62.0% agreement and kappa statistic of 0.220). Although it is likely that a combination of clinical, radiographic, and laboratory tests provides the best diagnostic approach for diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the data provided herein indicate that the tests themselves might have high intrinsic levels of unreliability and that the specific combination of tests that might be best used remains unclear.

Correlating pre-operative MRI measurements of metatarsal Osteomyelitis with surgical clean margins reveals the need for a one centimeter resection margin

Background

Due to the high incidence of forefoot ulcerations with associated osteomyelitis, there has been an increased demand for partial ray amputations. In order to ensure complete removal of infected metatarsal bone, a clean margin amount is chosen based on the surgeon’s intraoperative visual subjective evaluation. The margin is resected and sent to pathology. Currently the literature shows positive proximal margin rates of 35–40%. The purpose of this study was to reduce the rate of positive proximal margins by effectively resecting all infected bone using pre-operative MRI measurements with an added resection margin.

Methods

Twenty-four osteomyelitis positive metatarsals were included in this exploratory study. The distance of proximal osteomyelitic extension within the metatarsal was measured on MRI in centimeters. Intra-operatively, the partial ray amputation cut was determined by adding an extra 0.5 cm resection margin to the MRI measurement. At the study’s mid-point, bone histopathology revealed an increase in positive proximal margin rates-so the resection margin was increased to 1 cm. Descriptive outcomes included the mean distance of osteomyelitis propagation, proximal margin rates, as well as diagnostic statistics.

Results

After removing the specimens with false positive MRI results, the study sample included 21 metatarsals positive for osteomyelitis. A 0.5 cm resection margin proximal to the osteomyelitis resulted in a 50% positive proximal margin rate. After increasing the resection margin to 1 cm, there was found to be an improved positive proximal margin rate of 9%. Based on MRI findings, the mean distance + standard deviation of osteomyelitis propagation along the metatarsal proximally was 1.81 cm + 0.74 cm. The metatarsal specimen was processed by pathology into multiple pieces and compared to MRI, resulting in MRI sensitivity of 67%, specificity of 74%, positive predictive value of 79%, and negative predictive value of 60%.

Conclusions

By performing a 1 cm resection margin proximal to the metatarsal osteomyelitis the proximal margin rate was reduced to clinically meaningful levels. These preliminary findings support using a 1 cm resection margin when performing any form of metatarsal amputation, to reduce the risk of residual osteomyelitis post-operatively.

Trial registration

St. Luke’s Hospital, IRB National Protocol ID SLHN2015–112. Date:1–13-16.

Efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

The clinical diagnosis of osteomyelitis is difficult because of neuropathy, vascular disease, and immunodeficiency; also, with no established consensus on the diagnosis of foot osteomyelitis, the reported efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting osteomyelitis and distinguishing it from reactive bone marrow edema is unclear. Herein, we describe a retrospective study on the efficacy of MRI for decision-making accuracy in diagnosing osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODS

Twelve diabetic patients with infected foot ulcers underwent preoperative MRI between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2011. The findings were compared with the histopathologic features of 67 parts of 45 resected bones, the cut ends of which were also histopathologically evaluated.

RESULTS

Osteomyelitis was disclosed by MRI and histopathologically confirmed in 30 parts. In contrast, bone marrow edema diagnosed by MRI in 29 parts was confirmed in 23; the other six parts displayed osteomyelitis. Among 17 resected bones, 13 cut ends displayed bone marrow edema and four were normal. All of the wounds healed uneventfully.

CONCLUSIONS

In the diagnosis of diabetic foot ulcers, osteomyelitis is often reliably distinguished from reactive bone marrow edema, except in special cases.

What's new in the literature: an update of new research since the original WHS diabetic foot ulcer guidelines in 2006

The objective of the paper was to update the diabetic foot ulcer guidelines that were previously published in 2006. We performed a key word search using MEDLINE and Cochrane reviews for publication between January 2006 and January 2012. Articles that fit the inclusion criteria were reviewed and the previous guidelines were updated.

Conventional diagnostic challenges in periprosthetic joint infection

Periprosthetic joint infection remains a clinical challenge with no benchmark for diagnosis. The diagnosis is based on many different clinical variables that may be difficult to interpret, especially in the setting of chronic systemic disease. Synovial fluid aspiration, diagnostic imaging, traditional culture, peripheral serum inflammatory markers, and intraoperative frozen sections each have their limitations but continue to be the mainstay for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. As molecular- and biomarker-based technologies improve, the way we interpret and diagnose periprosthetic joint infection will ultimately change and may even improve diagnostic accuracy and turnaround time. Future research on this topic should be focused on improving diagnostic criteria for low-virulence organisms, improving interpretation of intraoperative frozen sections, and establishing improved synovial fluid and peripheral serum biomarker profiles for periprosthetic joint infection.

Efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis in the presence of ischemia

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been recognized as the most accurate imaging modality for the detection of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. However, how accurately MRI displays the extent of diabetic foot osteomyelitis in the presence of ischemia is still unclear. We retrospectively compared the preoperative MRI findings with the results of histopathologic examinations of resected bones and studied the efficacy of MRI in the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis of different etiologies. A total 104 bones from 18 foot ulcers in 16 diabetic patients (10 men and 6 women; age range 42 to 84 years) treated by surgical intervention from 2008 to 2012 was examined. In 8 neuropathic ulcers, 29 bones were accurately diagnosed in detail using MRI, even those with severe soft tissue infection. Of 75 bones in 10 ischemic ulcers, only 7 bones evaluated by MRI after revascularization were diagnosed accurately; the other 68 could not be diagnosed because of unclear or equivocal MRI findings. On histopathologic examination, all the bones were found to be infected through the bone cortex by the surrounding infected soft tissue, not directly by articulation. Overall, preoperative MRI is effective in the diagnosis of neuropathic ulcers, but less so of ischemic ones.

Diabetic foot infections with osteomyelitis: efficacy of combined surgical and medical treatment

Diabetic foot infections are a high risk for lower extremity amputation in patients with dense peripheral neuropathy and/or peripheral vascular disease. When they present with concomitant osteomyelitis, it poses a great challenge to the surgical and medical teams with continuing debates regarding the treatment strategy. A cohort prospective study conducted between October 2005 and October 2010 included 330 diabetic patients with osteomyelitis mainly involving the forefoot (study group) and 1,808 patients without foot osteomyelitis (control group). Diagnosis of osteomyelitis was based on probing to bone test with bone cultures for microbiological studies and/or repeated plain radiographic findings. Surgical treatment included debridement, sequestrectomy, resections of metatarsal and digital bones, or toe amputation. Antibiotics were started as empirical and modified according to the final culture and sensitivities for all patients. Patients were followed for at least 1 year after wound healing. The mean age of the study group was 56.7 years (SD = 11.4) compared to the control group of 56.3 years (SD = 12.1), while the male to female ratio was 3:1. At initial presentation, 82.1% (n=271) of the study group had an ulcer penetrating the bone or joint level. The most common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (33.3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (32.2%), and Escherichia coli (22.2%) with an almost similar pattern in the control group. In the study group, wound healing occurred in less than 6 months in 73% of patients compared to 89.9% in the control group. In the study group, 52 patients (15.8%) had a major lower extremity amputation versus 61 in the control group (3.4%) (P=0.001). During the postoperative follow-up visits, 12.1% of patients in each group developed wound recurrence. In conclusion, combined surgical and medical treatment for diabetic foot osteomyelitis can achieve acceptable limb salvage rate and also reduce the duration of time to healing along with the duration of antibiotic treatment and wound recurrence rate.

Statistical reliability of bone biopsy for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis

Bone biopsy is often referred to as the reference standard for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (OM), and it also serves as an important interventional tool with respect to diabetic foot infections and limb salvage. However, the phrase bone biopsy lacks a standardized definition, and the statistical reliability of the pathologic diagnosis has not been previously examined. The objective of the present study was to quantify the reliability of the histopathologic analysis of bone with respect to the diagnosis of diabetic foot OM. Four pathologists, kept unaware of the previous pathology reports and specific patient clinical characteristics, retrospectively reviewed 39 consecutive tissue specimens and were informed only that it was "a specimen of bone taken from a diabetic foot to evaluate for OM." As a primary outcome measure, the pathologists were asked to make 1 of 3 possible diagnoses: (1) no evidence of OM, (2) no definitive findings of OM, but cannot rule it out, or (3) findings consistent with OM. There was complete agreement among all 4 pathologists with respect to the primary diagnosis in 13 (33.33%) of the 39 specimens, with a corresponding kappa coefficient of 0.31. A situation of clinically significant disagreement, or in which at least 1 pathologist diagnosed "no evidence of OM," but at least 1 other pathologist diagnosed "findings consistent with OM," occurred in 16 (41.03%) of the specimens. These results indicate agreement below the level of a "reference standard" and emphasize the need for a more comprehensive diagnostic protocol for diabetic foot OM.

99mTc-besilesomab (Scintimun) in peripheral osteomyelitis: comparison with 99mTc-labelled white blood cells

Purpose

The diagnosis of osteomyelitis is a challenge for diagnostic imaging. Nuclear medicine procedures including white blood cell imaging have been successfully used for the identification of bone infections. This multinational, phase III clinical study in 22 European centres was undertaken to compare anti-granulocyte imaging using the murine IgG antibody besilesomab (Scintimun®) with ^99mTc-labelled white blood cells in patients with peripheral osteomyelitis.

Methods

A total of 119 patients with suspected osteomyelitis of the peripheral skeleton received ^99mTc-besilesomab and ^99mTc-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime (HMPAO)-labelled white blood cells (WBCs) in random order 2–4 days apart. Planar images were acquired at 4 and 24 h after injection. All scintigraphic images were interpreted in an off-site blinded read by three experienced physicians specialized in nuclear medicine, followed by a fourth blinded reader for adjudication. In addition, clinical follow-up information was collected and a final diagnosis was provided by the investigators and an independent truth panel. Safety data including levels of human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA) and vital signs were recorded.

Results

The agreement in diagnosis across all three readers between Scintimun® and ^99mTc-HMPAO-labelled WBCs was 0.83 (lower limit of the 95% confidence interval 0.8). Using the final diagnosis of the local investigator as a reference, Scintimun® had higher sensitivity than ^99mTc-HMPAO-labelled WBCs (74.8 vs 59.0%) at slightly lower specificity (71.8 vs 79.5%, respectively). All parameters related to patient safety (laboratory data, vital signs) did not provide evidence of an elevated risk associated with the use of Scintimun® except for two cases of transient hypotension. HAMA were detected in 16 of 116 patients after scan (13.8%).

Conclusion

Scintimun® imaging is accurate, efficacious and safe in the diagnosis of peripheral bone infections and provides comparable information to ^99mTc-HMPAO-labelled WBCs.