Chronic osteomyelitis is notoriously difficult to eradicate, and high treatment failure rates have been reported in the literature. [1,2] Although no evidence-based treatment guidelines exist for the management of chronic osteomyelitis, the ideal treatment strategy can be outlined as judicious resection of all necrotic tissue, dead-space management, and neovascularisation of the debridement site followed by soft-tissue and bony reconstruction as required. [3][4][5][6][7] Antibiotic therapy is empirically initiated as an adjunct to surgical management, and then continued as prolonged culture-specific (targeted) therapy. [3] In the absence of non-invasive sampling methods to ascertain the microbiological profile of osteomyelitis, the choice of empirical antibiotic therapy to initiate is often aimed at the most probable infecting organism, in conjunction with current international reports. [8] As the organism and antibiotic susceptibility profiles conceivably differ between geographical regions, empirical antibiotic strategies should ideally be based on local microbiological antibiograms. There are limited data available on the local pathogen profiles and antibiograms in developing countries, including South Africa (SA). [9] Objectives To review the antibiogram profiles of bacterial isolates from patients with chronic osteomyelitis of the appendicular skeleton who underwent surgical treatment at two high-volume dedicated musculoskeletal infection units in Western Cape Province, South Africa (SA). Secondary objectives were to evaluate potential empirical antibiotic regimens according to the cause of the osteomyelitis, i.e. fracture-related infection, haematogenous or contiguous spread.
MethodsA retrospective review of clinical records, microbial culture reports and antibiotic susceptibility data was performed for all patients of any age who underwent treatment for chronic osteomyelitis between 1 March 2016 and 31 December 2019. Acute infections (septic arthritis and early deep surgical infections), spinal infections and periprosthetic joint infections were excluded.At each institution, all patients were operated on by one of two musculoskeletal infection specialist surgeons (NF or ML) during the study period. Where cultures were taken from multiple surgical This open-access article is distributed under Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.