Recommendations Classification/diagnosis Diabetic foot infection must be diagnosed clinically, based on the presence of local or systemic signs or symptoms of inflammation (strong; low). Assess the severity of any diabetic foot infection using the Infectious Diseases Society of America/International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot classification scheme (strong; moderate). Osteomyelitis For an infected open wound, perform a probe‐to‐bone test; in a patient at low risk for osteomyelitis, a negative test largely rules out the diagnosis, while in a high‐risk patient, a positive test is largely diagnostic (strong; high). Markedly elevated serum inflammatory markers, especially erythrocyte sedimentation rate, are suggestive of osteomyelitis in suspected cases (weak; moderate). A definite diagnosis of bone infection usually requires positive results on microbiological (and, optimally, histological) examinations of an aseptically obtained bone sample, but this is usually required only when the diagnosis is in doubt or determining the causative pathogen's antibiotic susceptibility is crucial (strong; moderate). A probable diagnosis of bone infection is reasonable if there are positive results on a combination of diagnostic tests, such as probe‐to‐bone, serum inflammatory markers, plain X‐ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or radionuclide scanning (strong; weak). Avoid using results of soft tissue or sinus tract specimens for selecting antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis as they do not accurately reflect bone culture results (strong; moderate). Obtain plain X‐rays of the foot in all cases of non‐superficial diabetic foot infection (strong; low). Use MRI when an advanced imaging test is needed for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis (strong; moderate). When MRI is not available or contraindicated, consider a white blood cell‐labelled radionuclide scan, or possibly single‐photon emission computed tomography (CT) and CT (SPECT/CT) or fluorine‐18‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT scans (weak; moderate). Assessing severity At initial evaluation of any infected foot, obtain vital signs and appropriate blood tests, debride the wound and probe and assess the depth and extent of the infection to establish its severity (strong; moderate). At initial evaluation, assess arterial perfusion and decide whether and when further vascular assessment or revascularization is needed (strong; low). Microbiological considerations Obtain cultures, preferably of a tissue specimen rather than a swab, of infected wounds to determine the causative microorganisms and their antibiotic sensitivity (strong; high). Do not obtain repeat cultures unless the patient is not clinically responding to treatment, or occasionally for infection control surveillance of resistant pathogens (strong; low). Send collected specimens to the microbiology laboratory promptly, in sterile transport containers, accompanied by clinical information on the type of specimen and location of the wound (strong; low). Surgical treatment Consult...

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high‐quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full‐text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high‐quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high‐quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well‐designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Background Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. Methods In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers. Results From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of ulcer healing, of lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue or bone infection. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, both a positive probe‐to‐bone test and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate are strongly associated with its presence. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Plain X‐ray remains the first‐line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, but advanced imaging methods help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localization of infection is uncertain. Conclusion The results of this first reported systematic review on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the diversity of bacteria in diabetic foot osteomyelitis using a 16S rRNA sequencing approach and to compare the results with conventional culture techniques. In this prospective observational study, we obtained 34 bone samples from patients admitted to our hospital with a moderate–severe diabetic foot infection. We analysed the distribution of the 16S rRNA gene sequences in the bone samples, using an Illumina MiSeq Personal Sequencer. We compared the genera that were detected with the cultured pathogens in the bone samples with conventional techniques. In the 23 samples that had positive results with both techniques, Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium, Streptococcus and Propionibacterium spp. were detected in 20, 18, 13 and 11 samples, respectively. Significantly more anaerobes were detected with 16S rRNA sequencing compared to conventional techniques (86.9 % vs. 23.1 %, p = 0.001) and more Gram-positive bacilli were present (78.3 % vs. 3.8 %, p < 0.001). Staphylococcus spp. were identified in all of the sequenced bone samples that were negative with conventional techniques. Mixed genera were present in 83.3 % (5 of 6) of the negative samples. Anaerobic and fastidious organisms may play a more significant role in osteomyelitis than previously reported. Further studies with larger populations are needed in order to fully understand the clinical importance of the microbial diversity of diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of inflammatory markers to diagnose and monitor the treatment of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. We evaluated 35 consecutive patients admitted to our hospital with infected foot ulcers. Patients were divided in two groups based on the results of bone culture and histopathology: osteomyelitis and no osteomyelitis. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (MIP1α) were measured at baseline after 3 and 6 weeks of standard therapy. PCT levels in the osteomyelitis group were significantly higher at baseline than in the group with no osteomyelitis (P = 0·049). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the levels of the other markers. CRP, ESR, PCT and IL-6 levels significantly declined in the group with osteomyelitis after starting therapy, while MCP-1 increased (P = 0·002). TNFα and MIP1α levels were below range in 80 out of 97 samples and therefore not reported. Our results suggest that PCT might be useful to distinguish osteomyelitis in infected foot ulcers. CRP, ESR, PCT and IL-6 are valuable when monitoring the effect of therapy.

The expert panel on diabetic foot infection (DFI) of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot conducted a systematic review seeking all published reports relating to any type of treatment for infection of the foot in persons with diabetes published as of 30 June 2014. This review, conducted with both PubMed and EMBASE, was used to update an earlier one undertaken on 30 June 2010 using the same search string. Eligible publications included those that had outcome measures reported for both a treated and a control population that were managed either at the same time, or as part of a before-and-after case design. We did not include studies that contained only information related to definition or diagnosis, but not treatment, of DFI. The current search identified just seven new articles meeting our criteria that were published since the 33 identified with the previous search, making a total of 40 articles from the world literature. The identified articles included 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies with concurrent controls, and included studies on the use of surgical procedures, topical antiseptics, negative pressure wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen. Among the studies were 15 RCTs that compared outcomes of treatment with new antibiotic preparations compared with a conventional therapy in the management of skin and soft tissue infection. In addition, 10 RCTs and 1 cohort study compared different treatments for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Results of comparisons of different antibiotic regimens generally demonstrated that newly introduced antibiotic regimens appeared to be as effective as conventional therapy (and also more cost-effective in one study), but one study failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of a new antibiotic compared with that of a standard agent. Overall, the available literature was both limited in both the number of studies and the quality of their design. Thus, our systematic review revealed little evidence upon which to make recommendations for treatment of DFIs. There is a great need for further well-designed trials that will provide robust data upon which to make decisions about the most appropriate treatment of both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis in diabetic patients.

The probe-to-bone (PTB) test is a commonly used clinical test for osteomyelitis (OM), but its utility has been questioned in clinical settings where the prevalence of OM is low. This article aims to systematically review the accuracy of the PTB test to diagnose diabetic foot OM. We searched Ovid Medline and Scopus databases for studies using the keywords "probe to bone," "osteomyelitis," and "diabetic foot" from 1946 to May 2015. We summarized characteristics of the included studies and pooled the accuracy numbers using a bivariate random-effects model. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the PTB test was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], .75-.93) and 0.83 (95% CI, .65-.93), respectively. We conclude that the PTB test can accurately rule in diabetic foot OM in the high-risk patients and rule out OM in low-risk patients.

This study sought to assess the utility of monitoring response to treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) with Tc-99m WBC-labelled single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT) imaging. This is a retrospective cohort study of 20 patients with DFO with sequential Tc-99m WBC-labelled SPECT/CT imaging. Radiologic findings of osteomyelitis were evaluated and imaging results were correlated with clinical outcomes subtracted from chart review. Successful treatment of osteomyelitis was defined by wound healing and/or lack of re-admission for bone infection of the same site within 1 year. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of SPECT/CT to determine osteomyelitis treatment remission were 90%, 56%, 69% and 83%, respectively. Tc-99m WBC-labelled SPECT/CT imaging may be useful to help determine treatment outcomes for DFO.