Advertisement

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

Published:September 12, 2011DOI:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2011.08.005

      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

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Lipsky B.A.
        • Berendt A.R.
        • Deery H.G.
        • Embil J.M.
        • Joseph W.S.
        • Karchmer A.W.
        • LeFrock J.L.
        • Lew D.P.
        • Mader J.T.
        • Norden C.
        • Tan J.S.
        Infectious Disease Society of America. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 39: 885-910
        • Berendt A.R.
        • Peters E.J.
        • Bakker K.
        • Embil J.M.
        • Eneroth M.
        • Hinchliffe R.J.
        • Jeffcoate W.J.
        • Lipsky B.A.
        • Senneville E.
        • Teh J.
        • Valk G.D.
        Diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a progress report on diagnosis and a systematic review of treatment.
        Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008; 24: S145-S161
        • Dinh T.
        • Snyder G.
        • Veves A.
        Current techniques to detect foot infection in the diabetic patient.
        Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2010; 9: 24-30
        • Butalia S.
        • Palda V.A.
        • Sargeant R.J.
        • Detsky A.S.
        • Mourad O.
        Does this patient with diabetes have osteomyelitis of the lower extremity?.
        JAMA. 2008; 299: 806-813
        • Hartemann-Heurtier A.
        • Senneville E.
        Diabetic foot osteomyelitis.
        Diabetes Metab. 2008; 34: 87-95
        • Shank C.F.
        • Feibel J.B.
        Osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot: diagnosis and management.
        Foot Ankle Clin. 2006; 11: 775-789
        • Game F.
        Management of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes mellitus.
        Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2010; 6: 43-47
        • Sage R.A.
        Limb salvage and amputation.
        in: Banks A.S. Downey M.S. Martin D.E. Miller S.J. McGlamry's Comprehensive Textbook of Foot and Ankle Surgery. ed 3. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2001: 1617-1633
        • Basile P.
        • Rosenblum B.I.
        Surgical management and stepwise approach to diabetic foot infections.
        in: Zgonis T. Surgical Reconstruction of the Diabetic Foot and Ankle. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2009: 90-99
        • Frykberg R.G.
        • Zgonis T.
        The diabetic Charcot foot.
        in: Sidawy A.N. Diabetic Foot: Lower Extremity Arterial Disease and Limb Salvage. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2006: 117-128
        • Banks A.S.
        A clinical guide to the Charcot foot.
        in: Kominsky S.J. Medical and Surgical Management of the Diabetic Foot. Mosby, St. Louis1994: 115-143
        • Berendt A.R.
        • Lipsky B.A.
        Challenges in the infected diabetic foot: osteomyelitis and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
        in: Boulton A.J.M. Cavanagh P.R. Rayman G. The Foot in Diabetes. ed 4. Wiley, West Sussex, England2006: 169-185
        • Grayson M.L.
        • Gibbons G.W.
        • Balogh K.
        • Levin E.
        • Karchmer A.W.
        Probing to bone in infected pedal ulcers: a clinical sign of underlying osteomyelitis in diabetic patients.
        JAMA. 1995; 273: 721-723
        • Lavery L.A.
        • Armstrong D.G.
        • Peters E.J.
        • Lipsky B.A.
        Probe-to-bone test for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis: reliable or relic?.
        Diabetes Care. 2007; 30: 270-274
        • Aragon-Sanchez J.
        • Lipsky B.A.
        • Lazaro-Martinez J.L.
        Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis: is the combination of probe-to-bone test and plain radiography sufficient for high-risk patients?.
        Diabetes Med. 2011; 28: 191-194
        • Morales Lozano R.
        • Gonzalez Fernandez M.L.
        • Martinez Hernandez D.
        • Beneit Montesinos J.V.
        • Guisado Jimenez S.
        • Gonzales Jurado M.A.
        Validating the probe-to-bone test and other tests for diagnosing chronic osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot.
        Diabetes Care. 2010; 33: 2140-2145
        • Dinh M.T.
        • Abad C.L.
        • Safdar N.
        Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 47: 519-527
        • Nawaz A.
        • Torigian D.A.
        • Siegelman E.S.
        • Basu S.
        • Chryssikos T.
        • Alavi A.
        Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET, MRI, and plain film radiography (PFR) for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot.
        Mol Imaging Biol. 2010; 12: 335-342
        • Ertugrul M.B.
        • Baktiroglu S.
        • Salman S.
        • Unal S.
        • Aksoy M.
        • Berberoglu K.
        • Calangu S.
        The diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes: microbiological examination vs. magnetic resonance imaging and labeled leukocyte scanning.
        Diabetes Med. 2006; 23: 649-653
        • Kapoor A.
        • Page S.
        • Lavalley M.
        • Gale D.R.
        • Felson D.T.
        Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing foot osteomyelitis: a meta-analysis.
        Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167: 125-132
        • Joshi R.
        • Smith S.
        Is magnetic resonance imaging a suitable imaging modality for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot or ankle?.
        Can Assoc Radiol J. 2009; 60: 119-120
        • Filippi L.
        • Uccioli L.
        • Giurato L.
        • Schillaci O.
        Diabetic foot infection: usefulness of SPECT/CT for 99m Tc-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte imaging.
        Nucl Med. 2009; 50: 1042-1046
        • Rozzanigo U.
        • Tagliani A.
        • Vittorini E.
        • Pacchioni R.
        • Brivio L.R.
        • Caudana R.
        Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of diabetic foot with suspected osteomyelitis.
        Radiol Med. 2009; 114: 121-132
        • Fleischer A.E.
        • Didyk A.A.
        • Woods J.B.
        • Burns S.E.
        • Wrobel J.S.
        • Armstrong D.G.
        Combined clinical and laboratory testing improves diagnostic accuracy for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot.
        J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009; 48: 39-46
        • Kaleta J.L.
        • Fleischli J.W.
        • Reilly C.H.
        The diagnosis of osteomyelitis in diabetes using erythrocyte sedimentation rate: a pilot study.
        J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001; 91: 445-450
        • Ertugrul B.M.
        • Savk O.
        • Ozturk B.
        • Cobanoglu M.
        • Oncu S.
        • Sakarya S.
        The diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: examination findings and laboratory values.
        Med Sci Monit. 2009; 15: CR307-CR312
        • Weiner R.D.
        • Viselli S.J.
        • Accetta P.
        Histology versus microbiology for accuracy in identification of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot.
        J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011; 50: 197-200
        • Lesens O.
        • Desbiez F.
        • Vidal M.
        • Robin F.
        • Descamps S.
        • Beytout J.
        • Laurichesse H.
        • Tauveron I.
        Culture of per-wound bone specimens: a simplified approach for the medical management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis.
        Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011; 17: 285-291
        • Bernard L.
        • Uckay I.
        • Vuagnat A.
        • Assal M.
        • Stern R.
        • Rohner P.
        • Hoffmeyer P.
        Two consecutive deep sinus tract cultures predict the pathogen of osteomyelitis.
        Int J Infect Dis. 2010; 14: e390-e393
        • Zuluaga A.F.
        • Galvis W.
        • Saldarriaga J.G.
        • Agudelo M.
        • Salazar B.E.
        • Vesga O.
        Etiologic diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis: a prospective study.
        Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 95-100
        • Senneville E.
        • Melliez H.
        • Beltrand E.
        • Legout L.
        • Valette M.
        • Cazaubiel M.
        • Cordonnier M.
        • Caillaux M.
        • Yazdanpanah Y.
        • Mouton Y.
        Culture of percutaneous bone biopsy specimens for diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: concordance with ulcer swab cultures.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42: 57-62
        • Ertugrul M.B.
        • Baktiroglu S.
        • Salman S.
        • Unal S.
        • Aksoy M.
        • Berberoglu K.
        • Calangu S.
        The diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes: microbiological examination vs. magnetic resonance imaging and labeled leukocyte scanning.
        Diabetes Med. 2006; 23: 649-653
        • Brem H.
        • Sheehan P.
        • Rosenberg H.J.
        • Schneider J.S.
        • Boulton A.J.
        Evidence-based protocol for diabetic foot ulcers.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006; 117: 193S-209S
        • Frykberg R.G.
        • Zgonis T.
        • Armstrong D.G.
        • Driver V.R.
        • Giurini J.M.
        • Dravitz S.R.
        • Landsman A.S.
        • Lavery L.A.
        • Moor J.C.
        • Schuberth J.M.
        • Wukich D.K.
        • Andersen C.
        • Vanore J.V.
        American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. Diabetic foot disorders: a clinical practice guideline (2006 revision).
        J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006; 45: S1-S66
        • Brodsky J.W.
        The diabetic foot.
        in: Couglin M.J. Mann R.A. Saltzman CL C.L. Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. ed 8. Mosby Elsevier, Philadelphia2007: 1281-1368
        • Steinberg J.S.
        • Meyr A.J.
        • Taylor C.R.
        Limb salvage versus amputation in the setting of an amended calcaneal bone biopsy report.
        J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009; 48: 518-521
        • Joseph W.S.
        Bone and joint infections.
        in: Handbook of Lower Extremity Infections. ed 2. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia2003: 54-79
        • Parsons L.M.
        Pitfalls in the diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis in the presence of a contiguous neuropathic ulcer.
        J Cutan Med Surg. 2009; 13: S35-S37
        • Zhao R.
        From single cell gene-based diagnostics to diagnostic genomics: current applications and future perspectives.
        Clin Lab Sci. 2005; 18: 254-263
        • Call D.R.
        Challenges and opportunities for pathogen detection using DNA microarrays.
        Crit Rev Microbiol. 2005; 31: 91-99
        • Golinko M.S.
        • Joffe R.
        • de Vinck D.
        • Chandrasekaran E.
        • Stojadinovic O.
        • Barrientos S.
        • Vukelic S.
        • Tomic-Canic M.
        • Brem H.
        Surgical pathology to describe the clinical margin of debridement of chronic wounds using a wound electronic medical record.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2009; 209: 254-260
        • Schiller A.L.
        • Wang B.Y.
        • Klein M.J.
        Bones and joints.
        in: Rubin E. Gorstein F. Rubin R. Schwarting R. Strayer D. Rubins's Pathology: Clinicopathologic Foundations of Medicine. ed 4. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2005: 1304-1385
        • McGinn T.
        • Guyatt G.
        • Cook R.
        • Korenstein D.
        • Meade M.O.
        Measuring agreement beyond chance.
        in: Guyatt G. Rennie D. Meade M.O. Cook D.J. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. ed 2. McGraw Hill Medical, New York2008: 481-489

      Linked Article

      • Reply
        The Journal of Foot and Ankle SurgeryVol. 52Issue 5
        • Preview
          I welcome the publication of the investigation alluded to by the authors of the preceding letter. We clearly have a lot to learn with respect to the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (OM), and their proposed histopathologic classification system could prove to be an important step forward. I will especially consider whether their investigation examined the ability of pathologists to determine the difference between osteomyelitic and nonosteomyelitic bone, or whether it examined only the difference among different forms of OM after the primary diagnosis had been established.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF
      • Statistical Reliability of Bone Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis
        The Journal of Foot and Ankle SurgeryVol. 52Issue 5
        • Preview
          We would like to comment on an article by Meyr et al (1) and describe our experience with diabetic foot osteomyelitis (2). We recently published a histopathologic classification of osteomyelitis according to the cell groups present and the histopathologic changes in the bone samples analyzed (2). We have shown that with the use of a perfectly defined theoretical framework, the interpretation of the data observed in the bone biopsy is no longer subjective and the interobserver variability decreases.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF