Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Diabetes Reviews

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-3998
ISSN (Online): 1875-6417

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

X-Ray Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Clinical Comparison

Author(s): Karim Gariani*, Dan Lebowitz, Benjamin Kressmann, Joanna Gariani and Ilker Uçkay

Volume 17, Issue 3, 2021

Published on: 29 July, 2020

Page: [373 - 377] Pages: 5

DOI: 10.2174/1573399816999200729124134

Price: $65

Abstract

Objective: Radiographic imaging is an important diagnostic tool in diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). It is unknown whether DFO cases diagnosed with conventional X-ray versus positive Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) differ regarding epidemiology and treatment outcome. Theoretically, signs of inflammation on MRI without bone lesions might be easier to treat.

Methods: Our clinical pathway for diabetic foot infections discourages the use of MRI for the diagnosis of DFO. We compared the epidemiology and therapy of non-amputated DFO with positive features on conventional X-ray, MRI, or both. Radiology specialists interpreted the images. The intraoperative aspect of bone during amputation and the results of bone cultures were considered the gold standard for DFO diagnosis.

Results: We prospectively followed 390 DFO episodes in 186 adult patients for a median of 2.9 years and performed 318 conventional X-rays (median costs 100 Swiss Francs; 100 US$) and 47 (47/390; 12%) MRI scans (median 800 Swiss Francs; 800 US $). Among them, 18 episodes were associated with positive MRI findings but lacked bone lesions on X-ray. After debridement, the median duration of systemic antibiotics was 28 days for MRI-only episodes and 30 days for X-ray-positive cases (Wilcoxonranksum- test; p=0.26). The corresponding median numbers of surgical debridements were 1 and 1; and recurrence was witnessed in 25% and 28%, respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, MRI-only episodes did not alter the remission rate (odds ratio 0.5, 95%CI 0.1-5.2).

Conclusion: According to our clinical pathway, DFO episodes with positive MRI findings only did not differ epidemiologically from the remaining DFO cases and did not influence the choice of therapy nor remission rate.

Keywords: Diabetic foot osteitis, X-ray, MRI, clinical associations, outcomes, osteomyelitis.

[1]
Xing K, Huang G, Hua S, Xu G, Li M:. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment for osteomyelitis in diabetes. Diabet Med 2019; 36(5): 546-56.
[2]
Garcia Del Pozo E, Collazos J, Carton JA, Camporro D, Asensi V:. Factors predictive of relapse in adult bacterial osteomyelitis of long bones. BMC Infect Dis 2018; 18(1): 635.
[3]
Tone A, Nguyen S, Devemy F, et al. Six-week versus twelve-week antibiotic therapy for nonsurgically treated diabetic foot osteomyelitis: A multicenter open-label controlled randomized study. Diabetes Care 2015; 38(2): 302-7.
[4]
Cortes-Penfield NW, Kulkarni PA:. The History of Antibiotic Treatment of Osteomyelitis. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019; 6(5): ofz181.
[5]
Pincher B, Fenton C, Jeyapalan R, Barlow G, Sharma HK:. A systematic review of the single-stage treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14(1): 393.
[6]
Gariani K, Lebowitz D, von Dach E, Kressmann B, Lipsky BA, Uckay I:. Remission in diabetic foot infections: Duration of antibiotic therapy and other possible associated factors. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019; 21(2): 244-51.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.13507] [PMID: 30129109]
[7]
Lazaro Martinez JL, Garcia Alvarez Y, Tardaguila-Garcia A, Garcia Morales E:. Optimal management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: challenges and solutions. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2019; 12: 947-59.
[8]
Masters EA, Trombetta RP, de Mesy Bentley KL, et al. Evolving concepts in bone infection: redefining “biofilm”, “acute vs. chronic osteomyelitis”, “the immune proteome” and “local antibiotic therapy”. Bone Res 2019; 7: 20.
[9]
Glaudemans AW, Uckay I, Lipsky BA:. Challenges in diagnosing infection in the diabetic foot. Diabet Med 2015; 32(6): 748-59.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.12750] [PMID: 25765225]
[10]
Giurato L, Meloni M, Izzo V, Uccioli L:. Osteomyelitis in diabetic foot: A comprehensive overview. World J Diabetes 2017; 8(4): 135-42.
[11]
Lee YJ, Sadigh S, Mankad K, Kapse N, Rajeswaran G:. The imaging of osteomyelitis. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2016; 6(2): 184-98.
[12]
Pineda C, Espinosa R, Pena A:. Radiographic imaging in osteomyelitis: the role of plain radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and scintigraphy. Semin Plast Surg 2009; 23(2): 80-9.
[13]
Toledano TR, Fatone EA, Weis A, Cotten A, Beltran J:. MRI evaluation of bone marrow changes in the diabetic foot: a practical approach. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2011; 15(3): 257-68.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1278425] [PMID: 21644199]
[14]
Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE:. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165(6): 710-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052] [PMID: 17182981]
[15]
Rod-Fleury T, Dunkel N, Assal M, et al. Duration of post-surgical antibiotic therapy for adult chronic osteomyelitis: A single-centre experience. Int Orthop 2011; 35(11): 1725-31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1221-y] [PMID: 21318568]
[16]
Mauler F, Wanivenhaus F, Boni T, Berli M:. Nonsurgical treatment of osteomyelitis of the hallux sesamoids: A case series and literature review. J Foot Ankle Surg 2017; 56(3): 666-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.01.025] [PMID: 28476396]
[17]
Roug IK, Pierre-Jerome C:. MRI spectrum of bone changes in the diabetic foot. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81(7): 1625-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.048] [PMID: 21620598]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
9
1
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy