A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in the management of infection in the diabetic foot

Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (Impact Factor: 3.55). 02/2012; 28 Suppl 1(S1):142-62. DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2247
Source: PubMed


The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot expert panel on infection conducted a systematic review of the published evidence relating to treatment of foot infection in diabetes. Our search of the literature published prior to August 2010 identified 7517 articles, 29 of which fulfilled predefined criteria for detailed data extraction. Four additional eligible papers were identified from other sources. Of the total of 33 studies, 29 were randomized controlled trials, and four were cohort studies.
Among 12 studies comparing different antibiotic regimens in the management of skin and soft-tissue infection, none reported a better response with any particular regimen. Of seven studies that compared antibiotic regimens in patients with infection involving both soft tissue and bone, one reported a better clinical outcome in those treated with cefoxitin compared with ampicillin/sulbactam, but the others reported no differences between treatment regimens. In two health economic analyses, there was a small saving using one regimen versus another. No published data support the superiority of any particular route of delivery of systemic antibiotics or clarify the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in either soft-tissue infection or osteomyelitis. In one non-randomized cohort study, the outcome of treatment of osteomyelitis was better when the antibiotic choice was based on culture of bone specimens as opposed to wound swabs, but this study was not randomized, and the results may have been affected by confounding factors.
Results from two studies suggested that early surgical intervention was associated with a significant reduction in major amputation, but the methodological quality of both was low. In two studies, the use of superoxidized water was associated with a better outcome than soap or povidone iodine, but both had a high risk of bias. Studies using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor reported mixed results. There was no improvement in infection outcomes associated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. No benefit has been reported with any other intervention, and, overall, there are currently no trial data to justify the adoption of any particular therapeutic approach in diabetic patients with infection of either soft tissue or bone of the foot. Copyright

Download full-text


Available from: Benjamin Alan Lipsky,
  • Source
    • "Bone culture alone has been reported to have a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 60%. The major advantage of bone culture is that it is the only method to define the causative pathogen(s), thereby allowing determination of their antibiotic sensitivities and accurate targeting of therapy (54, 55). Bone samples can be obtained during an open operative procedure or by percutaneous biopsy (34). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Both osteomyelitis and Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CN) are potentially limb-threatening complications of diabetic neuropathy, but they require quite different treatments. Almost all bone infections in the diabetic foot originate from an infected foot ulcer while diabetic osteoarthropathy is a non-infectious process in which peripheral neuropathy plays the critical role. Differentiating between diabetic foot osteomyelitis and CN requires careful evaluation of the patient, including the medical history, physical examination, selected laboratory findings, and imaging studies. Based on available studies, we review the approaches to the diagnostic differentiation of osteomyelitis from CN of the foot in diabetic patients.
    Diabetic Foot and Ankle 11/2013; 4. DOI:10.3402/dfa.v4i0.21855
  • Source
    • "In 89% of the cases, the infected wounds contain mixed fungi and bacteria infection agents including, Serratia, Morganella, Proteus vulgaris, Haemophilus, Acinetobacter, Enterococcus, and Staphylococcus aureus 4—8. Regrettably , the chance of contracting resistant strains in a hospital setting is high, making the patient respond poorly to antibiotic therapy [9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article describes two inexpensive photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy (PACT) protocols to provide intensive local care on ulcerated feet of diabetic patients with osteomyelitis. Patients with this condition generally have poor quality of life. The usual treatment consists of the administration of a cocktail of drugs including anti-inflammatories, promoters of blood circulation, and systemic antibiotics. However, depending on the conditions of the tissues, amputation may be required. Consequently, it is important to develop PACT protocols that can help avoid amputation. Two PACT protocols were applied to two diabetic patients with osteomyelitis. These protocols were based on several PACT sessions that consisted of: (1) local injection of mixtures of phenothiazines (2% in water) and Hypericum perforatum extract (10% in propylene glycol), and (2) illumination, lasting 10 min, applied to the lesion's interior and exterior using, respectively, an optical fiber and a non-coherent light source. The frequency of PACT was daily or every other day in the beginning, and weekly after tissue recovery begun. The patients were followed clinically and by radiographic testing. Both PACT protocols helped cure these patients who were about to have amputation of their feet. Radiograms showed that bone had healed and that the bone's texture had improved. Here we have described efficient and affordable PACT protocols to treat osteomyelitis in the feet of diabetic patients. This treatment modality should be considered by vascular surgeons and by orthopedists to treat osteomyelitis that is resistant to conventional treatments.
    Photomedicine and laser surgery 02/2009; 27(1):145-50. DOI:10.1089/pho.2008.2252 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Management of diabetic foot ulcers presents a major clinical challenge. The response to treatment is often poor and the outcome disappointing, while the costs are high for both healthcare providers and the patient. In such circumstances, it is essential that management should be based on firm evidence and follow consensus. In the case of the diabetic foot, however, clinical practice can vary widely. It is for these reasons that the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot has published guidelines for adoption worldwide. The Group has now also completed a series of non-systematic and systematic reviews on the subjects of soft tissue infection, osteomyelitis, offloading and other interventions designed to promote ulcer healing. The current article collates the results of this work in order to demonstrate the extent and quality of the evidence which is available in these areas. In general, the available scientific evidence is thin, leaving many issues unresolved. Although the complex nature of diabetic foot disease presents particular difficulties in the design of robust clinical trials, and the absence of published evidence to support the use of an intervention does not always mean that the intervention is ineffective, there is a clear need for more research in the area. Evidence from sound clinical studies is urgently needed to guide consensus and to underpin clinical practice. It is only in this way that patients suffering with these frequently neglected complications of diabetes can be offered the best hope for a favourable outcome, at the least cost.
    Diabetic Medicine 01/2009; 25(12):1380-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02573.x · 3.12 Impact Factor
Show more