The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds

This randomized trial was done to test the effectiveness and safety of using a novel antiseptic solution (Dermacyn® Wound Care [DWC], Oculus Innovative Sciences, Petaluma, CA) in the management of the postoperative lesions on the infected diabetic foot. 40 patients with postsurgical lesions wider than 5 cm2 left open to heal by secondary intention were randomized into 2 groups. Group A was locally treated with DWC, whereas group B received povidone iodine as local medication, both in adjunct to systemic antibiotic therapy and surgical debridement if needed. Ischemia, renal failure, bilateral lesions, or immunodepression were considered as exclusion criteria. Patients were followed up weekly for 6 months. The primary endpoint was healing rate at 6 months, while secondary endpoints were healing time, time to achieve negative cultures, duration of antibiotic therapy, number of reinterventions, and adverse events. Healing rates at 6 months were significantly shorter in group A (90%) than in group B (55%; P < .01). The time taken for cultures to become negative and duration of antibiotic therapy were also significantly (P < .05) shorter in group A than in group B, whereas the number of reinterventions was significantly higher in group B (P < .05). No difference was noted in the adverse events except that for reinfections, which were more frequent in group B than in group A (P < .01). DWC is as safe as and more effective than standard local antiseptics in the management of wide postsurgical lesions in the infected diabetic foot.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of major lower extremity amputations (MLEAs) in a series, including diabetic patients, with the aim to study whether diabetes mellitus is a risk factor of in-hospital mortality and perioperative complications. A retrospective analysis of 283 MLEAs (221 of these patients were diabetic and 62 were nondiabetic) performed between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2008, at the General Surgery Department and Diabetic Foot Unit of La Paloma Hospital in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Canary Islands) was done. The significant risk factors of mortality were >" xbd="324" xhg="301" ybd="1481" yhg="1446"/>75 years of age (odds ratio [OR] = 4.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-11.7), postoperative cardiac complications (OR = 12.3, 95% CI = 3.7-40.2) and postoperative respiratory complications (OR = 3.8, 95% CI = 1.0-13.3). No statistically significant risk factors were found related to the presence of systemic and wound-related complications. In diabetic patients, the significant risk factors of mortality were postoperative cardiological complications (OR = 13.6, 95% CI = 3.1-59.6), postoperative respiratory complications (OR = 5.9, 95% CI = 1.0-35.5), and first episode of amputation (OR = 5.9, 95% CI = 1.4-24.3). There were no statistically significant differences in the outcome of major amputations between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Hospital stay was significantly longer in diabetic patients (P < .01) though when the patients with diabetic foot infections were excluded, this difference was not found.

Diabetic foot infections can be a challenge to diagnose, especially when osteomyelitis is in question. Evaluation of infection should involve a thorough examination of the extremity for clinical signs of infection along with appropriate laboratory and imaging studies. Laboratory markers of inflammation such as peripheral leukocyte count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin may provide useful information when diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection. However, laboratory markers alone should not be used to diagnose a diabetic foot infection as they are non-specific in nature. Imaging studies may also provide valuable clues regarding the presence of infection. Plain radiographs are a good initial screening tool as they are both inexpensive and easily accessible. However, their sensitivity in diagnosing osteomyelitis is poor. Thus, more advanced imaging such as radionuclide imaging and magnetic resonance imaging are warranted when osteomyelitis is suspected. Magnetic resonance imaging is presently considered the gold standard in diagnosing osteomyelitis, despite its wide variation in reported sensitivity and specificity. However, the significant cost of magnetic resonance imaging prevents its use as a screening tool. Collection of reliable microbiologic data is critical in making a diagnosis as well as for treatment of infection, especially when osteomyelitis is concerned. Deep swabs and transcutaneous bone biopsy are considered the ideal methods of obtaining the necessary information. Finally, monitoring treatment should also be performed with an eye towards both laboratory data and the clinical exam.

Foot wounds are the most common diabetes-related cause of hospitalization and frequently result in amputation. Although generally diagnosed clinically based on signs and symptoms of inflammation, empirical antibiotic treatment should be based on tissue cultures until resolution of infection. Advances in molecular detection over the past decade, including rapid chromogenic agar and real-time polymerase chain reaction, have improved diagnostic capabilities. However, chronic wounds may host biofilm bacteria not adequately detected by current microbiological testing. Enhanced DNA testing is required to identify these pathogens as well as evolving and previously underdiagnosed bacteria. Two options, nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization and rDNA sequencing, are on the horizon for clinical use. Wound biofilms also necessitate more complex clinical management including debridement, augmenting host defenses, suppression of biofilms, and wound closure. Adopting these advances in diagnosis and treatment may help with overall prognosis and reduce health care costs.

Osteomyelitis is one of the most frequent infections of the diabetic foot accounting for 10-15% of mild infections and almost 50% of severe infections. The definitive diagnosis of foot osteomyelitis requires obtaining bone samples for microbiological and histopathological studies. The treatment of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients continues to be debated. Until recently, most experts considered that the standard treatment for diabetic foot osteomyelitis should be the surgical removal of infected bone. Recent data suggest that antibiotic treatment can achieve an apparent remission of osteomyelitis though it is difficult to identify patients for this approach. One of the main arguments used to justify the solely antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis is the alteration of foot biomechanics produced as a consequence of surgery. Conservative surgery combined with antibiotics is an attractive option in treating diabetic foot osteomyelitis because it may reduce the changes in the biomechanics of the foot and minimize the duration of antibiotic therapy. It is currently accepted that the combination of antibiotics with surgical removal of the infected bone may cure the majority of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Recent literature emphasizes the role of antibiotics in the management of foot infections while little effort is dedicated to reviewing the surgical treatment of this challenging diabetic complication, apart from amputation. More research, including studies of adjunctive therapies in cases of bone infection in the feet of diabetic patients is required.