Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
Volume 50, Issue 6 , Pages 663-667, November 2011

Statistical Reliability of Bone Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

  • Andrew J. Meyr, DPM, FACFAS

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Podiatric Surgery, Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Andrew J. Meyr, DPM, FACFAS, Assistant Professor, Department of Podiatric Surgery, Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine, 8th at Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
  • ,
  • Salil Singh, DPM

      Affiliations

    • Resident, Temple University Hospital Podiatric Surgical Residency Program, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • ,
  • Xinmin Zhang, MD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • ,
  • Natalya Khilko, MD

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • ,
  • Abir Mukherjee, MD

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • ,
  • Michael J. Sheridan, ScD

      Affiliations

    • Epidemiologist and Biostatistician, Department of Medicine, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA
  • ,
  • Jasvir S. Khurana, MD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA

published online 12 September 2011.

Abstract 

Bone biopsy is often referred to as the reference standard for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (OM), and it also serves as an important interventional tool with respect to diabetic foot infections and limb salvage. However, the phrase bone biopsy lacks a standardized definition, and the statistical reliability of the pathologic diagnosis has not been previously examined. The objective of the present study was to quantify the reliability of the histopathologic analysis of bone with respect to the diagnosis of diabetic foot OM. Four pathologists, kept unaware of the previous pathology reports and specific patient clinical characteristics, retrospectively reviewed 39 consecutive tissue specimens and were informed only that it was “a specimen of bone taken from a diabetic foot to evaluate for OM.” As a primary outcome measure, the pathologists were asked to make 1 of 3 possible diagnoses: (1) no evidence of OM, (2) no definitive findings of OM, but cannot rule it out, or (3) findings consistent with OM. There was complete agreement among all 4 pathologists with respect to the primary diagnosis in 13 (33.33%) of the 39 specimens, with a corresponding kappa coefficient of 0.31. A situation of clinically significant disagreement, or in which at least 1 pathologist diagnosed “no evidence of OM,” but at least 1 other pathologist diagnosed “findings consistent with OM,” occurred in 16 (41.03%) of the specimens. These results indicate agreement below the level of a “reference standard” and emphasize the need for a more comprehensive diagnostic protocol for diabetic foot OM.

Level of Clinical Evidence: 3

Keywords: bone marrow, correlation, diabetes mellitus, histology, infection, surgery

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 25.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Financial Disclosure: None.

 Conflicts of Interest: None.

 Audio file online only at http://www.jfas.org

PII: S1067-2516(11)00446-7

doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2011.08.005

Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
Volume 50, Issue 6 , Pages 663-667, November 2011