HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: dc07-1744v1 31/4/637    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Senneville, E. Articles by Fontaine, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Senneville, E. Articles by Fontaine, P. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Outcome of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis Treated Nonsurgically

A retrospective cohort study

¹ Diabetic Foot Clinic, Dron Hospital, Tourcoing, France
² Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dron Hospital, Tourcoing, France
³ Department of Diabetology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire of Lille, Lille, France

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Eric Senneville, Infectious Diseases Department, Dron Hospital, 135 rue du Pr Coty 59200 Tourcoing, France. E-mail: esenneville{at}ch-tourcoing.fr

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this article was to identify criteria predictive of remission in nonsurgical treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Diabetic patients who were initially treated without orthopedic surgery for osteomyelitis of the toe or metatarsal head of a nonischemic foot between June 2002 and June 2003 in nine French diabetic foot centers were identified, and their medical records were reviewed. Remission was defined as the absence of any sign of infection at the initial or contiguous site assessed at least 1 year after the end of treatment. A total of 24 demographic, clinical, and therapeutic variables including bone versus swab culture–based antibiotic therapy were analyzed.

RESULTS—Fifty consecutive patients aged 62.2 ± 11.1 years (mean ± SD) with diabetes duration of 16 ± 10.9 years were included. The mean duration of antibiotic treatment was 11.5 ± 4.21 weeks. Bone biopsy was routinely available in four of the nine centers. Overall patient management was similar in the different centers except for the use of rifampin, which was recorded more frequently in patients from centers in which a bone biopsy was available. At the end of a 12.8-month posttreatment mean follow-up, 32 patients (64%) were in remission. Bone culture–based antibiotic therapy was the only variable associated with remission, as determined by both univariate (18 of 32 [56.3%] vs. 4 of 18 [22.2%], P = 0.02) and multivariate analyses (odds ratio 4.78 [95% CI 1.0–22.7], P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS—Bone culture–based antibiotic therapy is a factor predictive of success in diabetic patients treated nonsurgically for osteomyelitis of the foot.

Abbreviations: MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
The question of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for diabetic patients with osteomyelitis of the foot remains subject to debate (1). It was traditionally thought that these infections could not be treated without resecting the infected bone (2). However, the option to treat such patients without surgery may be decided on the basis of other "real-life" reasons, such as the unavailability of a surgeon, refusal of the patient to undergo operation, or the surgeon's refusal to operate. As surgical treatment of osteomyelitis may lead to biomechanical deterioration, some authors have tried to treat these patients with little or no bone surgery, and apparently satisfactory results have been reported in several recent studies (3–7). Patients were mainly given fluoroquinolones, clindamycin, and rifampin, which reach high concentrations in bone, penetrate into white blood cells, and exhibit activity toward bacterial strains with reduced metabolism, as described in biofilm-related infections (8–11). Except for one series reported by our group (3), antibiotic therapy for these patients was based on culture of nonbone specimens such as wound tissues or deep samples taken during debridement of foot lesions (4–7).

The factors associated with success in diabetic patients treated for osteomyelitis of the foot have been assessed in several studies (5,7,12,13). Bamberger et al. (12) found that success was associated with intravenous therapy given for at least 4 weeks or with a combination of intravenous and oral therapy administered for at least 10 weeks. Bacteremia, gangrene, and open versus closed wounds were identified by Peterson et al. (13) as risk factors in failure. More recently, Embil et al. (7) did not find any difference in the outcome of patients treated with bone versus nonbone debridement nor in those treated with oral versus oral plus intravenous therapy. The respective roles of an increase in serum creatinine levels and of a fever, identified by Pittet et al. (5) as independent predictive factors of failure in such patients, cannot be applied to bone infections, as deep tissue infection and osteomyelitis were not evaluated separately in their study. Appropriate antimicrobial therapy is obviously of major importance in nonsurgical treatment, together with other components of patient care, such as optimal wound nursing and suitable off-loading. Recently, the French consensus on the management of diabetic foot infections proposed antibiotic regimens based on the results of bone culture for patients with osteomyelitis of the foot (14). However, no study has dealt with the benefits of reliable microbiological documentation of the infected bone in terms of patient outcome.

In northern France, for the last 10 years, nine centers have been working together as referral centers for diabetic patients with foot infections, applying the same treatment protocols, except for bone biopsy, which has been routinely available only in four centers. The objective of the present retrospective study was therefore to examine the impact of demographic and therapeutic parameters, including bone culture–based antibiotic therapy, on the outcome of diabetic patients with osteomyelitis of the foot treated nonsurgically.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
We conducted a retrospective study in which medical records were examined for diabetic patients with osteomyelitis of the foot (i.e., below the ankle) treated nonsurgically in nine referral centers in northern France (Béthune, Boulogne sur Mer, Douai, Dunkerque, Lens, Lille, Roubaix, Tourcoing, and Valenciennes). (A complete list of the participating centers and investigators can be found in the APPENDIX.) Treatment was defined as nonsurgical if no surgical intervention involving the bone was performed during the 10 days after the initiation of antimicrobial therapy.

Inclusion criteria
The 2.5-year study period, including follow-up, lasted from June 2002 to December 2004. Patients aged 18 years were included if they had type 2 diabetes and osteomyelitis of a nonischemic foot, which was defined as the absence of any pedal pulse. Patients with suspected osteomyelitis of the foot had at least two of the following clinical criteria: a wound lasting 2 weeks over an underlying bony prominence, with an ulcer surface >2 cm² or depth >3 mm, associated with probing to bone and/or abnormalities consistent with the diagnosis of osteomyelitis on plain radiographs, bone scans (coupled gallium [⁶⁷Ga-citrate]-technetium [^99mTc-diphosphonate] radionuclide or Leukoscan [sulesomab scintigraphy using an antigranulocyte antibody Fab' fragment labeled with ^99mTc]), or magnetic resonance imaging. Patients with a definitive diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot met the same diagnostic criteria associated with a positive bone culture. In addition, data concerning patient follow-up for at least 12 months after the end of treatment had to be available. Patients who had gangrene or required bone resection or amputation when osteomyelitis of the foot was diagnosed were excluded.

Specimen collection
Nonbone specimens were swabs only taken from the soft tissues of the wound after brief cleansing with sterile saline solution by passing a sterile compress over the ulcer surface. Bone lesion samples were collected by an orthopedist in the operating room under fluoroscopic guidance using an 11-gauge biopsy needle (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) inserted through a 5- to 10-mm skin incision at least 20 mm from the ulcer periphery, in accordance with the procedure described by our group previously (15).

Treatment
Patients were treated using a nonsurgical approach if there were no signs of bone fragmentation on plain radiographs of the foot. Swab culture results were used to select antibiotic treatment in patients who did not have a bone biopsy or those with a negative result. In patients with a positive bone biopsy, antibiotic regimens were tailored to cover the microorganisms isolated from the bone with no reference to the swab culture results. The use of rifampin was discouraged in centers that did not do bone biopsies and in patients with no positive bone culture results. Antibiotics were selected in accordance with the patient's comorbidities and prescribed at doses adapted from those proposed by Lew et al. (16). Antibiotics were administered either orally for the entire treatment period or intravenously for a short period (<7 days) followed by a long course of oral antimicrobial therapy. Patients who had a negative bone biopsy were evaluated together with the group of patients treated with swab culture–based antibiotic therapy.

All physicians adopted the same approach to wound care, which included the use of alginates, hydrocolloids, or hydrogels. Patients were not treated with any topical antimicrobials or other adjunctive therapies. A recommendation was also made to remove pressure from the infected wound using a suitable device.

Evaluation of outcome
Remission was defined as the absence of any sign of infection at the initial or a contiguous site evaluated at least 1 year after the end of antibiotic treatment, with neither a new infectious episode nor the need for orthopedic surgery of the foot at either of these sites during the treatment and follow-up period. Failure was defined as any other outcome.

Statistical analysis
In the initial analysis of the data, all variables were stratified according to the patient outcome of success or failure, and variables regarding treatment were stratified into centers with and without the availability of bone biopsy. Next, we performed a comparison of continuous variables, e.g., patient's age at enrollment, with a two-sample t test, and categorical variables such as sex, by use of a two-tailed Fisher's exact test. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Variables in univariate analysis that had a P value of <0.05 were included in the regression analysis model. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata software version 7.0.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
Patient and episode characteristics
During the study period, we identified 59 consecutive patients with diabetes and osteomyelitis of a nonischemic foot; 3 of them died of noninfectious causes, and 6 were lost to follow-up. The study population consisted of 50 patients (sex ratio 32 men to 18 women, aged 62.2 ± 11.1 years [mean ± SD]), among whom 16 (32%) had already been treated for osteomyelitis of the foot; 14 of these underwent amputations for worsening infection 1–5 years before they were enrolled in the present study. Twenty-seven patients (54%) had been followed at a diabetic foot clinic before diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot. Osteomyelitis was located on a metatarsal head in 35 patients (70%), on the proximal phalanx in 13 patients (26%), and on the distal phalanx in 2 patients (4%). Mean duration of the foot wound was 20.2 ± 23.2 weeks, and mean diabetes duration was 16 ± 10.9 years. At enrollment, mean values for C-reactive protein, glycated hemoglobin, and creatinine clearance were 32.1 ± 57.3 mg/l, 8.09 ± 1.89%, and 66.5 ± 11.8 ml/min, respectively. At inclusion, all patients had at least one imaging examination showing abnormalities suggestive of osteomyelitis. Eleven patients had normal plain radiographs of the foot, with 10 having a positive bone scan and 1 a positive magnetic resonance imaging scan.

The swab and bone culture results are shown in Table 1. Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant organism cultured from both types of samples, and Gram-negative bacilli accounted for approximately one-third of the total amount of pathogens. Polymicrobial infections were identified in 22 (44%) cultures, including 7 of 22 (31.8%) positive bone biopsies and 15 of 28 (53.6%) swabs (P = 0.17). The prevalence of multiresistant strains, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and extended spectrum β-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae, was similar among the bacteria cultured from bone (25%) and swab (22.7%) samples. Four of the 26 (15.4%) patients who had a bone biopsy with negative bone culture results were enrolled in the present study because of a strong suspicion of osteomyelitis of the foot attributable to a foot wound lasting for >2 weeks, which was associated with imaging abnormalities consistent with osteomyelitis at the bony site underlying the wound. In addition, bone lesions in these patients were located either on the toe or on the metatarsal head, neither of which is likely to be involved in diabetic neuro-osteoarthropathy (1).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1— Summarized data for patients’ outcome.

	CONCLUSIONS—

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

It has been suggested that empirical treatment with appropriate antibiotics may be the most effective strategy for patients with suspected osteomyelitis (17). However, the wide variety of bacteria potentially involved in osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot and current spread of resistant bacteria in most diabetic foot clinics, especially MRSA and extended spectrum β-lactamase–producing bacteria, render empirical therapy hazardous (18–20). In addition, empirical use of some antimicrobial agents such as fluoroquinolones or rifampin may result in additional bacterial resistance (21,22). Here, bacteria resistant to the initial antibiotic treatment were all cultured from patients who had been given swab culture–based rifampin, fluoroquinolones, and fusidic acid combinations. Diamantopoulos et al. (23) reported a series of 84 diabetic patients with severe foot infections, including 41 patients with osteomyelitis, who were treated with a combination of ciprofloxacin and clindamycin for 5 days and then with oral ciprofloxacin as single therapy, according to results of deep wound or debrided tissue cultures. They reported that 35% of the pathogens were resistant to clindamycin, and patients were therefore treated with ciprofloxacin alone. This may have led to the selection of bacteria with acquired resistance to ciprofloxacin, which was reported in 10.2% of their study patients. Both our results and those obtained by Diamantopoulos et al. highlight the possible negative effect of nonbone-based antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot, even when suitable antibiotics such as clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, and rifampin are used to treat chronic osteomyelitis. In most diabetic foot clinics, treatment of osteomyelitis of the foot is either empirical or is based on microbiological documentation obtained by wound or deep tissue cultures (4–7,24). Some experts have stated that the use of nonbone specimens as a guide to antibiotic therapy in chronic osteomyelitis could cause an unacceptably high rate of therapeutic error because the microbiology of bone and nonbone is very different (16,25–28). Here, 18 of 22 (81.8%) and 14 of 28 (50%) diabetic patients with or without bone culture–based antibiotic therapy, respectively, were cured at the end of follow up (P = 0.02).

Although bone biopsy is a safe procedure, it is rarely performed in diabetic patients with osteomyelitis of the foot (15). This may result in prescribing suboptimal antibiotic therapy in patients who are nonetheless at high risk of a poor outcome because of micro/macroangiopathy, peripheral neuropathy, and/or poor immunological responses (29).

Several methodological weaknesses may have affected the validity of our results. First, the absence of data regarding bone pathogens in patients treated with swab culture–based antibiotic therapy did not enable us to assess the role of inappropriate antibiotic therapy on the outcome of these patients. Second, given the retrospective design of the study, undetermined differences in global management of patients among the diabetic foot centers may have influenced the effect of bone culture–versus swab culture–based antibiotic therapy. Third, the presence of osteomyelitis could not be confirmed in patients who did not have a bone biopsy.

In summary, our results provide arguments for recommending the use of bone biopsy in diabetic patients treated nonsurgically for osteomyelitis of the foot.

	APPENDIX

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
Participating investigators and institutions are as follows: Fabrice Devemy, MD (General Hospital of Lens), Catherine Fermont, MD (Teaching Hospital of Lille), Vincent Legros, MD (General Hospital of Valenciennes), Christine Lemaire, MD (General Hospital of Béthune), Marc Lepeut, MD (General Hospital of Roubaix), Nordine Bouhous, MD (General Hospital of Dunkerque), Gaëtan Prévost, MD (General Hospital of Douai), and Dominique Tsirtsikolou, MD (General Hospital of Boulogne sur Mer).

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank Katherine Flower for proofreading.

	Footnotes

 
Published ahead of print at http://care.diabetesjournals.org on 9 January 2008. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1744.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received for publication September 4, 2007. Accepted for publication January 2, 2007.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 

1. Jeffcoate WJ, Lipsky BA: Controversies in diagnosing and managing osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes. Clin Infect Dis 39:115–122, 2004[Medline]
   
2. Mader JT, Ortiz M, Calhoun JH: Update on the diagnosis and management of osteomyelitis. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 13:701–724, 1996[Medline]
   
3. Senneville E, Yazdanpanah Y, Cazaubiel M, Cordonnier M, Valette M, Beltrand E, Khazarjian A, Maulin L, Alfandari S, Caillaux M, Dubreuil L, Mouton Y: Rifampin-ofloxacin oral regimen for the treatment of mild to moderate diabetic foot osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 39:235–240, 2001
   
4. Venkatesan P, Lawn S, Macfarlane RM, Fletcher EM, Finch RG, Jeffcoate WJ: Conservative management of osteomyelitis in the feet of diabetic patients. Diabet Med 14:487–490, 1997[Medline]
   
5. Pittet D, Wyssa B, Herter-Clavel C, Kursteiner K, Vaucher J, Lew DP: Outcome of diabetic foot infections treated conservatively: a retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Arch Intern Med 159:851–856, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Yadlapalli N, Vaishnar A, Sheehan P: Conservative management of diabetic foot ulcers complicated by osteomyelitis. Wounds 14:31–35, 2002
   
7. Embil JM, Rose G, Trepman E, Math MC, Duerksen F, Simonsen JN, Nicolle LE: Oral antimicrobial therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Foot Ankle Int 27:771–779, 2006[Medline]
   
8. Norden CW: Lessons learned from animal models of osteomyelitis. Rev Infect Dis 10:103–110, 1988[Medline]
   
9. Norden CW, Shinners E, Niederitter K: Clindamycin treatment of experimental chronic osteomyelitis due to Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 153:956–959, 1986[Medline]
   
10. Rissing JP: Antimicrobial therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults: role of the quinolones. Clin Infect Dis 25:1327–1333, 1997[Medline]
    
11. Norden CW: Experimental chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis in rabbits: treatment with rifampin alone and in combination with other antimicrobial agents. Rev Infect Dis 5 (Suppl 1):491–494, 1983[Medline]
    
12. Bamberger DM, Daus GP, Gerding DN: Osteomyelitis in the feet of diabetic patients: long-term results, prognostic factors, and the role of antimicrobial and surgical therapy. Am J Med 83:653–660, 1987[Medline]
    
13. Peterson LR, Lissack LM, Canter K, Fasching CE, Clabots C, Gerding DN: Therapy of lower extremity infections with ciprofloxacin in patients with diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, or both. Am J Med 86:801–808, 1989[Medline]
    
14. French Consensus on the management of diabetic foot infections. Méd Mal Infect 37:14–25, 2007
    
15. Senneville E, Melliez H, Beltrand E, Legout L, Valette M, Cazaubiel M, Cordonnier M, Caillaux M, Yazdanpanah Y, Mouton Y: Culture of percutaneous bone biopsy specimens for diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: concordance with ulcer swab cultures. Clin Infect Dis 42:57–62, 2006[Medline]
    
16. Lew DP, Waldvogel FA: Osteomyelitis. Lancet 364:369–379, 2004[Medline]
    
17. Eckman MH, Greenfield S, Mackey WC, Wong JB, Kaplan S, Sullivan L, Dukes K, Pauker SG: Foot infections in diabetic patients: decision and cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 273:712–720, 1995[Abstract]
    
18. Wheat LJ, Allen SD, Henry M, Kernek CB, Siders JA, Kuebler T, Fineberg N, Norton J: Diabetic foot infections: bacteriologic analysis. Arch Intern Med 146:1935–1940, 1986[Abstract]
    
19. Hartemann-Heurtier A, Robert J, Jacqueminet S, Ha Van G, Golmard JL, Jarlier V, Grimaldi A: Diabetic foot ulcer and multidrug-resistant organisms: risk factors and impact. Diabet Med 21:710–715, 2004[Medline]
    
20. Tentolouris N, Petrikkos G, Vallianou N, Zachos C, Daikos GL, Tsapogas P, Markou G, Katsilambros N: Methicillin-resistant prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in infected and uninfected diabetic foot ulcers. Clin Microbiol Infect 12:186–189, 2006[Medline]
    
21. Wehrli W: Rifampin: mechanisms of action and resistance. Rev Infect Dis 5(Suppl. 1):407–411, 1983
    
22. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE: Prosthetic joint infections. N Engl J Med 351:1645–1654, 2004[Free Full Text]
    
23. Diamantopoulos EJ, Haritos D, Yfandi G, Grigoriadou M, Margariti G, Paniara O, Raptis SA: Management and outcome of severe diabetic foot infections. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 106:346–352, 1998[Medline]
    
24. Slater RA, Lazarovitch T, Boldur I, Ramot Y, Buchs A, Weiss M, Hindi A, Rapoport MJ: Swab cultures accurately identify bacterial pathogens in diabetic foot wounds not involving bone. Diabet Med 21:705–709, 2004[Medline]
    
25. Zuluaga AF, Galvis W, Jaimes F, Vespa O: Lack of microbiological concordance between bone and non-bone specimens in chronic osteomyelitis: an observational study. BMC Infect Dis 2:8, 2002[Medline]
    
26. Khatri G, Wagner DK, Sohnle PG: Effect of bone biopsy in guiding antimicrobial therapy for osteomyelitis complicating open wounds. Am J Med Sci 321:367–371, 2001[Medline]
    
27. Zuluaga AF, Galvis W, Saldarriaga JG, Agudelo M, Salazar BE, Vesga O: Etiologic diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 166:95–100, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
28. Mackowiak PA, Jones SR, Smith JW: Diagnostic value of sinus-tract cultures in chronic osteomyelitis. JAMA 239:2772–2775, 1978[Abstract]
    
29. Lipsky BA: Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 25:1318–1826, 1997[Medline]
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Hosalkar, J. Hsu, N. K. Pandya, and M. A. Keenan What's New in Orthopaedic Rehabilitation J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 1, 2008; 90(10): 2301 - 2311. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: dc07-1744v1 31/4/637    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Senneville, E. Articles by Fontaine, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Senneville, E. Articles by Fontaine, P. Social Bookmarking                What's this?