Advertisement

Utility of Culturing Marginal Bone in Patients Undergoing Lower Limb Amputation for Infection

      ABSTRACT

      Guidelines suggest culturing clinically uninfected bone at the margin after surgical resection for osteomyelitis, but little published evidence supports this procedure. To investigate whether culturing marginal bone after completing resection of infected bone affected antibiotic use or further surgical intervention, we collected data on sequential patients undergoing amputation for a foot infection at our tertiary care hospital between January 2014 and May 2015. We recorded patient age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, level of amputation, whether marginal bone was sent for culture, microbiology of any marginal bone specimens, type and duration of antibiotic therapy, and any further surgical resection. Among 132 patients, the mean age was 71.9 years, 103 (78.0%) were male, and 79 (59.8%) had diabetes. Treating surgeons sent marginal bone in 58 (43.9%) of these patients, 50 (86.2%) of which were culture positive. Patients with a positive bone culture were significantly more likely to undergo further surgical intervention (20.0% vs 6.1%, p = .047). For patients with diabetes, compared with those without, surgeons did not send marginal bone for culture more often (46% vs 42%, p = .72), nor did they undertake further surgical interventions more frequently (13.4% vs 10.1%, p = .89). Our results suggest that the clinicians used the marginal bone culture findings to make clinical decisions but do not clarify if there is a benefit to performing this procedure. Although patients whose proximal bone specimens were culture positive were more likely to undergo a surgical intervention, the reasons for, and benefit of, this additional surgery were unclear.

      Level of Clinical Evidence

      Keywords

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

      References

      1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Diabetes: Australian facts 2008. Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442468075. Accessed December 17, 2018.

        • Lipsky BA
        • Aragon-Sanchez J
        • Diggle M
        • Embil J
        • Kono S
        • Lavery L
        • Senneville É
        • Urbančič-Rovan V
        • Van Asten S
        • Peters EJ
        • International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot
        IWGDF guidance on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes.
        Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016; 32: 45-74
      2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Diabetes Prevalence in Australia. July 2011. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/4fdd3043-0786-4ac2-a0b9-5d6e37d9b7e8/13008.pdf.aspx?inline=true. Accessed December 1, 2018.

        • Raspovic KM
        • Wukich DK
        Self-reported quality of life and diabetic foot infections.
        J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014; 53: 716-719
        • Glaudemans AW
        • Uckay I
        • Lipsky BA
        Challenges in diagnosing infection in the diabetic foot.
        Diabet Med. 2015; 32: 748-759
        • Lipsky BA
        • Berendt AR
        • Cornia PB
        • Pile JC
        • Peters EJ
        • Armstrong DG
        • Deery HG
        • Embil JM
        • Joseph WS
        • Karchmer AW
        • Pinzur MS
        • Senneville E
        • Infectious Diseases Society of America
        2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 54: e132-e173
        • Atway S
        • Nerone VS
        • Springer KD
        • Woodruff DM
        Rate of residual osteomyelitis after partial foot amputation in diabetic patients: a standardized method for evaluating bone margins with intraoperative culture.
        J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012; 51: 749-752
        • Kowalski TJ
        • Matsuda M
        • Sorenson MD
        • Gundrum JD
        • Agger WA
        The effect of residual osteomyelitis at the resection margin in patients with surgically treated diabetic foot infection.
        J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011; 50: 171-175
        • Allahabadi S
        • Haroun KB
        • Musher DM
        • Lipsky BA
        • Barshes NR
        Consensus on surgical aspects of managing osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot.
        Diabet Foot Ankle. 2016; 7: 30079
        • Bernstein B
        • Stouder M
        • Bronfenbrenner E
        • Chen S
        • Anderson D
        Correlating pre-operative MRI measurements of metatarsal osteomyelitis with surgical clean margins reveals the need for a one centimeter resection margin.
        J Foot Ankle Res. 2017; 10: 40
      3. Phillips S. Therapeutic guidelines 2015. Available at: https://tgldcdp.tg.org.au/index. Accessed June 2, 2016.

        • Aragon-Sanchez FJ
        • Cabrera-Galvan JJ
        • Quintana-Marrero Y
        • Hernandez-Herrero MJ
        • Lazaro-Martinez JL
        • Garcia-Morales E
        • Beneit-Montesinos JV
        • Armstrong DG
        Outcomes of surgical treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a series of 185 patients with histopathological confirmation of bone involvement.
        Diabetologia. 2008; 51: 1962-1970
        • Wolfson D
        • Santa J
        • Slass L
        Engaging physicians and consumers in conversations about treatment overuse and waste: a short history of the choosing wisely campaign.
        Acad Med. 2014; 89: 990-995
        • Gilbert R
        • Logan S
        • Moyer VA
        • Elliott EJ
        Assessing diagnostic and screening tests: part 2. How to use the research literature on diagnosis.
        West J Med. 2001; 175: 37-41
        • Lord SJ
        • Irwig L
        • Simes RJ
        When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials?.
        Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144: 850-855
        • Peeling RW
        • Smith PG
        • Bossuyt PM
        A guide for diagnostic evaluations.
        Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010; 8: 2-6