ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Does complete resection of infected bone improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis?
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic and Surgical Treatment of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: The Histopathological Evidence.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Does complete resection of infected bone improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis?International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of the study was to compare outcomes in patients with complete surgical resection versus partial resection of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (OM). A post hoc analysis of 171 patients with OM was performed using data from two randomized clinical trials. OM was confirmed with bone culture or histopathology. Surgical culture specimens were obtained from resected bone and sent for histopathology and microbiology. Residual osteomyelitis (RO) was defined as a positive resected margin on culture or histopathology. No residual osteomyelitis (NRO) was defined as no growth from bone culture and no histopathological inflammation in the biopsy of the resection margin. Data from the 12-month follow-up were used to determine clinical outcomes. During the index hospitalization, NRO patients had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 21.0, 13.0-38.0 vs. RO 37.0, 20.8-50.0, p <0.01) and more amputations than patients with RO (NRO 89.9% vs. RO 60.9%, p <0.01). During the 12-month follow-up, patients with NRO also had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 42, 21.0-66.5 vs. RO 50.5, 35.0-75.0, p = 0.02). During the 12-month follow-up, there was no difference in ulceration at the same site (NRO 3.7%, RO 4.3% p = 0.85), hospitalization (NRO 32.6%, RO 34.8%, p = 0.76), total re-infections (NRO 25.3%, RO 29.3%, p = 0.56), re-infection with osteomyelitis (NRO 13.3% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.36), amputation (NRO 8.8%, RO 5.4%, p = 0.86) and time to wound healing in days (NRO 94, 41.0-365 vs. RO 106, 42.8-365, p = 0.77). Successful treatment of osteomyelitis was achieved by 86.7% and 86.5% of patients. During the index hospitalization, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had more amputations and were treated with antibiotics for a shorter duration. During the 12-month follow-up, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had shorter durations of antibiotics. There were no differences in re-infection, amputation, re-ulceration or hospitalization. Level of evidence: 1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.