Topical "soft candle" applications for infected diabetic foot wounds: a cause for concern?

AIMS

There is a cultural barrier to early medical intervention for diabetic foot infections in Trinidad & Tobago, stemming from the strong cultural belief in "soft candle" as effective treatment. We carried out a case-control study to evaluate the outcomes of "soft candle" to treat diabetic foot infections.

METHODS

ALL CONSECUTIVE PATIENTS ADMITTED WITH DIABETIC FOOT INFECTIONS WERE INTERVIEWED TO COLLECT DATA ON: demographics, medical history, unhealthy lifestyle markers (exposure to risk factors for chronic diseases), chosen treatment and details of "soft candle" use. The hospital records were accessed on discharge to records the main outcome measures: HbA1c readings, duration of hospitalization, amputation and in-hospital mortality. Two groups were defined: The control group included patients who sought medical attention after detecting a foot infection. The study group included patients who recognized their infection but voluntarily chose to utilize "soft candle" regimens. We excluded patients who voluntarily chose to use other forms of non-traditional treatment or sought no treatment at all. Outcomes were compared using SPSS ver 19. A two-tailed P value was calculated for variables of interest in each group using Fisher's exact test. The duration of hospitalization between the groups was compared using paired T-Test. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 442 patients who met inclusion criteria: There were 60 patients in the study group at an average age of 55.2 years (SD ± 11.4; range 43-88): 63% had HBA1c readings >7.0% at presentation and 95% had unhealthy lifestyle habits. There were 382 patients in the control group at an average age of 59.1 years (SD ± 12.6, Range 37-89): 74% with HBA1c readings >7.0% at presentation and 48% with unhealthy lifestyle habits. Patients who used "soft candle" had significantly longer duration of hospitalization (15.5 ± 10.2 vs 9.2 ± 3.9 days; P<0.001) and major amputations (13.3% vs 5.6%; P=0.048) that was considered clinically significant. There was no difference in minor amputations (31.7% vs 34.3%; P=0.770) or in-hospital mortality (1.7% vs 0.52%; P=0.355) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In its current form, the traditional practice of topical "soft candle" application to diabetic foot wounds may be potentially harmful. Persons with diabetes should be warned about these effects. We have identified the target population for educational campaigns.

Deep wound cultures correlate well with bone biopsy culture in diabetic foot osteomyelitis

BACKGROUND

Osteomyelitis is a major complication in patients with diabetic foot ulceration. Accurate pathogenic identification of organisms can aid the clinician to a specific antibiotic therapy thereby preventing the need for amputation.

METHODS

All diabetic patients with bone biopsy-confirmed osteomyelitis were included into the study: biopsies were performed either during surgical removal of infected bone or percutaneously under guided fluoroscopy through non-infected tissue. The depth and extent of the ulcer was assessed using a sterile blunt metal probe. Deep wound cultures were taken from the wound base after sharp debridement.

RESULTS

Of 66 cases of suspected osteomyelitis in 102 joints, 34 patients had both bone biopsies and deep wound cultures over the study period. Thirty two of 34 (94%), had a history of preceding foot ulceration, and in 25 of the cases a positive probe to bone test was recorded. In a high proportion of patients, at least one similar organism was isolated from both the deep wound culture and bone biopsy procedures (25 of 34 cases, 73.5%, p<0.001). When organisms were isolated from both wound cultures and bone biopsies, the identical strain was identified in both procedures in a significant proportion of cases (16 of 25 cases, 64%, p<0.001, total sample analysis in 16 of 34 cases, 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

Deep wound cultures correlate well with osseous cultures and provide a sensitive method in assessing and targeting likely pathogens that cause osseous infections. This will help aid the clinician in guiding antibiotic therapy in centers where bone biopsies may not be readily available.