Search

The aim of this meta‐analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes in patients with and without residual osteomyelitis (ROM) after surgical bone resection for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). We completed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase using keywords DFO, Residual OM (ROM), and positive bone margins. The study outcomes included wound healing, antibiotic duration, amputation, and re‐infection. Five hundred and thirty patients were included in the analysis; 319 had no residual osteomyelitis (NROM), and 211 had ROM. There was not a significant difference in the proportion of wounds that healed 0.6 (p = 0.1, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] 0.3–1.3). The risk of infection was 2.0 times higher (OR = 2.0, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.1–3.4), and the risk of amputation was 4.3 times higher (OR = 4.3, p = 0.0001, 95% CI 2.4–7.6) in patients with ROM. Patients with ROM received antibiotics significantly longer. The mean difference was 16.3 days (p = 0.02, 95% CI 11.1–21.1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare the microbial loads of patients with diabetic foot infections treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with and without irrigation with polyhexamethylene biguanide (NPWTi-P). This is a post hoc analysis of combined data of two randomized clinical trials. We evaluated people with diabetes treated with moderate and severe diabetic foot infections that required surgery. Tissue specimens were obtained after the initial surgery and following a second planned return to the operating room after 48-72 h of NPWT or NPWTi-P, prior to the second surgery. We used quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to determine the total microbial loads (Log 10 16S copies per gram of tissue). There was no difference in mean quantitative bacterial cultures among patients that received NPWT and NPWTi-P (before first surgery Log 10 : NPWT = 6.4 ± 1.8, NPWTi-P = 7.5 ± 1.7 vs before second surgery Log 10 : NPWT = 6.7 ± 1.8, NPWTi-P = 7.6 ± 1.9 p = .12). There was no difference in wound healing (59.5% vs 50.0%, p = .51) or time to heal (127 ± 109.3 vs 143 ± 95.9), p = .71). There were fewer re-infections in people that received traditional NPWT (28.6% vs 56.3%, p = .05). Level of Clinical Evidence: Level 1., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.