Opinions about the most appropriate surgical management of diabetes-related foot infection: a cross-sectional survey.
Clinical practice
Diabetic foot disease
Orthopaedic surgery
Survey
Vascular surgery
Journal
Journal of foot and ankle research
ISSN: 1757-1146
Titre abrégé: J Foot Ankle Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101471610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Mar 2022
02 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
30
08
2021
accepted:
21
02
2022
entrez:
2
3
2022
pubmed:
3
3
2022
medline:
4
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a lack of high quality evidence to guide the optimal management of diabetes-related foot infection, particularly in cases of severe diabetes-related foot infection and diabetes-related foot osteomyelitis. This study examined the opinions of surgeons about the preferred management of severe diabetes-related foot infection. Vascular and orthopaedic surgeons in Australia and New Zealand were invited to complete an online survey via email. The survey included multi-choice and open-ended questions on clinical management of diabetes-related foot infection. Responses of vascular surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons were compared using non-parametric statistical tests. Open-text responses were examined using inductive content analysis. 29 vascular and 20 orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey. One-third (28.6%) used best-practice guidelines to assist in decisions about foot infection management. Areas for guideline improvement identified included more specific advice regarding the indications for available treatments, more recommendations about non-surgical patient management and advice on how management can be varied in regions with limited health service resource. The probe-to-bone test and magnetic resonance imaging were the preferred methods of diagnosing osteomyelitis. Approximately half (51.2%) of respondents indicated piperacillin combined with tazobactam as the preferred antibiotic choice for empirical treatment of severe diabetes-related foot infection. Negative pressure wound therapy was the most common way of managing a wound following debridement. All vascular surgeons (100%) made revascularisation decisions based on the severity of ischemia while most orthopaedic surgeons (66.7%) were likely to refer to vascular surgeons to make revascularisation decisions. Vascular surgeons preferred using wound swabs while orthopaedic surgeons favoured tissue or bone biopsies to determine the choice of antibiotic. Respondents perceived a moderate variation in management decisions between specialists and supported the need for randomised controlled trials to test different management pathways. Most vascular and orthopaedic surgeons do not use best-practice guidelines to assist in decisions about management of diabetes-related foot infection. Vascular and orthopaedic surgeons appear to have different preferences for wound sampling to determine choice of antibiotic. There is a need for higher quality evidence to clarify best practice for managing diabetes-related foot infection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of high quality evidence to guide the optimal management of diabetes-related foot infection, particularly in cases of severe diabetes-related foot infection and diabetes-related foot osteomyelitis. This study examined the opinions of surgeons about the preferred management of severe diabetes-related foot infection.
METHODS
METHODS
Vascular and orthopaedic surgeons in Australia and New Zealand were invited to complete an online survey via email. The survey included multi-choice and open-ended questions on clinical management of diabetes-related foot infection. Responses of vascular surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons were compared using non-parametric statistical tests. Open-text responses were examined using inductive content analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
29 vascular and 20 orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey. One-third (28.6%) used best-practice guidelines to assist in decisions about foot infection management. Areas for guideline improvement identified included more specific advice regarding the indications for available treatments, more recommendations about non-surgical patient management and advice on how management can be varied in regions with limited health service resource. The probe-to-bone test and magnetic resonance imaging were the preferred methods of diagnosing osteomyelitis. Approximately half (51.2%) of respondents indicated piperacillin combined with tazobactam as the preferred antibiotic choice for empirical treatment of severe diabetes-related foot infection. Negative pressure wound therapy was the most common way of managing a wound following debridement. All vascular surgeons (100%) made revascularisation decisions based on the severity of ischemia while most orthopaedic surgeons (66.7%) were likely to refer to vascular surgeons to make revascularisation decisions. Vascular surgeons preferred using wound swabs while orthopaedic surgeons favoured tissue or bone biopsies to determine the choice of antibiotic. Respondents perceived a moderate variation in management decisions between specialists and supported the need for randomised controlled trials to test different management pathways.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Most vascular and orthopaedic surgeons do not use best-practice guidelines to assist in decisions about management of diabetes-related foot infection. Vascular and orthopaedic surgeons appear to have different preferences for wound sampling to determine choice of antibiotic. There is a need for higher quality evidence to clarify best practice for managing diabetes-related foot infection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35232476
doi: 10.1186/s13047-022-00523-w
pii: 10.1186/s13047-022-00523-w
pmc: PMC8889647
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Wound Repair Regen. 2010 Mar-Apr;18(2):154-8
pubmed: 20163568
Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2019 Jun 21;12:947-959
pubmed: 31417295
J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 17;10(6):
pubmed: 33802685
Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):789-95
pubmed: 24130347
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Feb 15;44(4):562-5
pubmed: 17243061
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3283
pubmed: 32176450
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3280
pubmed: 32176444
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 04;(9):CD009061
pubmed: 26337865
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127 Suppl 1:144S-153S
pubmed: 21200285
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Oct 1;63(7):944-8
pubmed: 27369321
Int J Infect Dis. 2015 Nov;40:81-91
pubmed: 26460089
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14;(7):CD010471
pubmed: 26171906
J Foot Ankle Res. 2021 Jan 19;14(1):8
pubmed: 33468226
J Foot Ankle Res. 2018 Apr 10;11:13
pubmed: 29651304
Diabetes Care. 2017 Aug;40(8):1111-1120
pubmed: 28733376
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jan 22;167(2):125-32
pubmed: 17242312