Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shimpo Aoki ◽  
Lauren R Bayer ◽  
Dennis P Orgill
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Multidisciplinary Approach ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Biomechanical Changes

Thirteen percent of diabetic patients will develop a foot ulcer, often associated with infection, vascular disease and biomechanical changes. Limb salvage offers the potential to restore function but does not correct the underlying metabolic disturbance. We review the surgical approach to diabetic foot infections including debridement, skin grafts, local flaps and a variety of new technologies. A comprehensive multidisciplinary approach is beneficial to optimize outcomes. The full range of reconstructive options available to plastic surgeons may be used in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. This review has 5 figures, 2 tables, and 20 references. Key words: Diabetic Foot Infection (DFI), Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU), Diabetes Mellitus (DM), wound care, foot infection, bacterial infection, surgical management, neuropathy, surgery of the lower extremity, deformities

scholarly journals DIABETIC FOOT INFECTIONS;

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 153-161
Author(s):  
MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR ◽  
MAQSOOD AHMAD ◽  
MUHAMMAD BADAR BASHIR ◽  
Muhammad Irfan ◽  
Zahid Yasin Hashmie
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Surgical Department ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Group A ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Group B

Objective: (1) To evaluate the effects of G-CSF in eliminating infection in diabetic foot wound (2) Tocompare the effects with conventional diabetic foot management. Design: Prospective, open, randomized comparativestudy. Setting: Medical&Surgical Department of Allied, DHQ Hospital & Nawaz Medicare Faisalabad. Period: FromJan 2000 to Nov 2000 Patients & Methods: Fifty diabetic patients with foot infections were included in this study. Themean age was 52 years ranging from 27 to 60 years. They were divided into two equal groups(Group A and Group B).Results: The male patients were 41(82%) and female 9(18%). Forty six percent of patients were on oral hypoglycaemicdrugs, and 54% on insulin. The trauma preceding infection was 20%, Peripheral neuropathy 94% and peripheralvascular disease 34%. Thirty two percent of patients were smoker. Group A were subjected to G-CSF ( Neupogen )therapy (n=25) subcutanously daily for 5days in addition to conventional measures. Whereas patients in Group Breceived only conventional therapy. Both groups received similar antibiotic and insulin treatment. G-CSF therapy wasassociated with earlier eradication of pathogens from the infected ulcer (median 5 [range 2-11] vs11 [6-31] days in thegroup B; (p=<O.000I), quicker resolution of cellulitis (6 vs l4 days; p<O.0001), shorter hospital stay (8 vsl6 days;p<O.000l), and a shorter duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment (7 vs l4 days ;p—0.0001).No G-CSF treatedpatient needed surgery, whereas three patients in group B underwent toe amputation and six had extensivedebridement under anaesthesia (p=0.00 1). G-CSF therapy was generally well tolerated. Conclusion: Granulocytecolony stimulating factor (G-CSF) may be used as a good adjuvant therapy along with conventional measures for themanagement of diabetic foot infection, as it promotes the healing of diabetic foot ulcer/cellulitis and consequentlyprevents many hazardous complications like amputation of limbs, long hospital stays, extensive and prolonged antibioticuse and last but not the least the total misery of the patients.

scholarly journals A randomized controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of a topical gentamicin–collagen sponge in diabetic patients with a mild foot ulcer infection

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 205031211877395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilker Uçkay ◽  
Benjamin Kressmann ◽  
Sébastien Di Tommaso ◽  
Marina Portela ◽  
Heba Alwan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Collagen Sponge ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Topical Antibiotic

Objectives: The initial phase of infection of a foot ulcer in a person with diabetes is often categorized as mild. Clinicians usually treat these infections with antimicrobial therapy, often applied topically. Some experts, however, believe that mild diabetic foot ulcer infections will usually heal with local wound care alone, without antimicrobial therapy or dressings. Methods: To evaluate the potential benefit of treatment with a topical antibiotic, we performed a single-center, investigator-blinded pilot study, randomizing (1:1) adult patients with a mild diabetic foot ulcer infection to treatment with a gentamicin–collagen sponge with local care versus local care alone. Systemic antibiotic agents were prohibited. Results: We enrolled a total of 22 patients, 11 in the gentamicin–collagen sponge arm and 11 in the control arm. Overall, at end of therapy, 20 (91%) patients were categorized as achieving clinical cure of infection, and 2 (9%) as significant improvement. At the final study visit, only 12 (56%) of all patients achieved microbiological eradication of all pathogens. There was no difference in either clinical or microbiological outcomes in those who did or did not receive the gentamicin–collagen sponge, which was very well tolerated. Conclusion: The results of this pilot trial suggest that topical antibiotic therapy with gentamicin–collagen sponge, although very well tolerated, does not appear to improve outcomes in mild diabetic foot ulcer infection.

scholarly journals Diabetes a risk for antimicrobial resistance?

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 2811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasavi Gedela ◽  
Sree Lakshmi Gosala
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Resistance Pattern ◽  
Causative Organism ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resistance Rates

Background: Diabetic foot infections can cause substantial morbidity. The role of Diabetes mellitus in the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens in patients with foot infections is not well clarified. So, we compared the profile of antibiotic resistance in diabetic and non-diabetic foot ulcer infections. Objectives were to compare the antimicrobial resistance pattern in diabetic and non-diabetic lower limb infections.Methods: T Pus was isolated in 50 Diabetic and 50 non-diabetic foot ulcer infections. The organisms were isolated on specific media and antibiotic susceptibility was done by using Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method.Results: The most frequent causative organism in diabetic and non-diabetics is Pseudomonas 27.5% vs 27.1%, Staphylococcus 24.1% vs 27.1%, Klebsiella 24.1% vs 22.03%, E. coli 10.3% vs 10.16%, Proteus 5.17% vs 5.08%. No significant differences in resistance rates to Amikacin, Penicillin, Ofloxacin, Vancomycin, Piperacillin + Tazobactum were observed between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. There is significant difference in resistance to Ampicillin (p=0.017).Conclusions: Diabetes per se does not seem to influence the susceptibility pattern to antimicrobials in our group of patients with foot ulcer infections.

scholarly journals KEJADIAN DERAJAT LUKA DIABETES TIDAK BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN NILAI RISIKO DIABETIC FOOT ULCER

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-227
Author(s):  
Risma Anggraeni Yuliastuti ◽  
Megah Andriany ◽  
Eka Putri Y.
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Diabetic Ulcer ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Risk Levels

The highest diabetic complication percentage is neuropathy (54%) causing diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). The study aimed to know the relationship between diabetic foot ulcer risk levels with diabetic ulcer severity levels. Scope of the study was diabetic wound care, particularly on legs mostly experienced by diabetic patients. The method used was descriptive correlation with cross sectional design. Sampling method was non probability with purposive sampling. Respondent number was 16 persons with inclusion criteria was diabetic patients with ulcer in one leg and no ulcer on another side in the second visitation to a diabetic clinic in Bekasi,Indonesia and agreed to be involved in the study. DFU risk level instrument modified from Diabetes Foot Screening and Risk Stratification Form of New Zealand Society for Study of Diabetes (NZSSD) to measure the DFU degree on legs with no ulcer. Another tool was to measure severity level of legs with ulcer according to Wagner. Data analysis used Kendall’s tau with 0.05 of significance level. The result shows there is no relationship between DFU risk levels with severity degree of diabetic ulcers. From the study, we can conclude that nurses do not need provide specific DFU prevention based on diabetic ulcer severity grade. 

scholarly journals Diabetic Foot Infection, Biofilm & New Management Strategy

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-22
Author(s):  
Ruke MG ◽  
Savai J
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Chronic Wounds ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
The Body ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Ischemic Ulcers

The world is facing a major epidemic of diabetes mellitus (DM) & available reports suggest that all these patients are at risk of developing diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Approximately 50 – 60% of all DFUs can be classified as neuropathic. Signs or symptoms of vascular compromise are observed in 40 to 50% of all patients with the vast majority having neuro-ischemic ulcers, and only a minority of patients has purely ischemic ulcers. Diabetic foot infections are usually polymicrobial in nature, involving both aerobes and anaerobes, which can decay any part of the body especially the distal part of the lower leg. However, one of the hidden barriers to wound healing is the presence of biofilm in chronic DFUs. Biofilms are difficult to identify & diagnose, recalcitrant to topical antibiotics & can reoccur even after sharp debridement. More than 90% of chronic wounds are complicated with biofilms. Hence, early identification and management of diabetic foot infections becomes imperative in order to prevent complications & amputation. Debridement is considered to be the gold standard treatment approach for managing DFU manifested with necrotic tissue. However, biofilm can reform even after sharp debridement and can delay healing & recovery. Also, antibiotics & few antiseptics have limited role in managing DFUs complicated with biofilm. Until recently, Cadexomer iodine, a new generation iodine formulation with microbead technology has taken a different profile in wound care. It can effectively manage biofilm along with exudate & possesses superior desloughing action. Additionally, appropriate ways of offloading, dressings & use of newer treatment strategies like negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and / or use of growth factors can ensure faster healing & early wound closure. Although, commendable efforts in recent years have been taken in the diagnosis and treatment of DFU, it still remains a major public health concern.

scholarly journals Risk factors of amputation in diabetic foot infections

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quraysh Shabbir Sadriwala ◽  
Bapuji S. Gedam ◽  
Murtaza A. Akhtar
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Poor Glycemic Control ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections

Background: Diabetes is the most common underlying cause of foot ulcers, infection, and ischemia, leading to hospitalization and the most frequent cause of non-traumatic lower extremity amputation. Despite well-defined risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer development, limited data are available as to which factors predict amputation in a diabetic foot ulcer episode. Therefore, to predict lower limb amputation occurrence and to determine the factors associated with the risk of amputation in diabetic patients, we conducted this study.Methods: A hospital based longitudinal study was carried out to assess the risk factors associated with amputation in diabetic foot infection. Patients with foot infections, who were either a diagnosed case of diabetes mellitus or were diagnosed at the institute were included in the study. We excluded patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy or radiotherapy, and infections at or above the ankle joint. Study factors were demographic details, biochemical parameters, Wagner grading, peripheral neuropathy as evaluated by nerve conduction test and vasculopathy as assessed by Ankle brachial index. The primary outcome factor was amputation. The data was presented as descriptive statistics and analyzed by dividing the patients into amputation and non-amputation group, and univariate and multivariate analysis was done.Results: A total of 64 patients were included in the study, out of which the amputation rate was 39.1%. Poor glycemic control, osteomyelitis, vasculopathy, peripheral neuropathy and Wagner grading were statistically significant.Conclusions: In the present study, poor glycemic control, vasculopathy, peripheral neuropathy and higher Wagner grade are significant risk factors for amputation in diabetic foot infections.

scholarly journals Different Pain Level Of Diabetes Mellitus Patients With Peripheral Neuropathy Who Have Been Given Tens And Deep Breathing Interventions In Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment In Yogyakarta General Hospital

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
SATRIYA PRANATA
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
The Body ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Ulcer Treatment

Introduction : Regular intervention of diabetic� foot ulcers is wound care. Patients often complain of pain when nurse performs wound care. If the pain is not resolved it will result in anxiety feeling. A routine intervention conducted so far is intra-breath in intervention to reduce pain, as it is expected by reducing the pain it will be followed by a decrease of patients� anxiety. Intra-breath intervention has not been able to reduce pain quickly on a moderate scale, especially high-scale so it is necessary to find out other alternative interventions. The available comparative intervention is TENS. The purpose of this study is to know the difference between intra-breath and TENS intervention in the level of anxiety in diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy in diabetic foot ulcer treatment. Method : This study used RCT method on 28 respondents divided into 14 intervention groups and 14 control groups. The anxiety of respondents was assessed using Hamilton Scale of Anxiety tools before and after conductin TENS intervention and intra-breath. TENS intervention was given for 15 minutes at a frequency of 100 Hz and intra-breath was given until the wound care intervention was completed. Result : The results showed that there was significant average difference of anxiety level between the use of TENS intervention and the use of intra-breath intervention in intervention group and the control group with value of P <0.05. TENS can reduce the level of anxiety with the value of P 0.000, while intra -breath is able to lower the level of anxiety with the value of P 0.006. Discussion : The respondents admitted the difficulty of experience maximum relaxation when wound care is done, this condition is related to the comfortable position of respondents. When wound care is done, the respondents can not relax maximaly because many of the foot that has ulcers should be padded with a pillow to maximize the treatment. Provision of TENS with a frecuency of 100 Hz is corresponding to the body�s bioelectricity, the patients that receive TENS intervention may become more rrelaxed with endorphine hormone release and decreasing of pain because the electricity blocks pain implans in the neural tube.

scholarly journals Current concepts for the evaluation and management of diabetic foot ulcers

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 513-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas F. Mavrogenis ◽  
Panayiotis D. Megaloikonomos ◽  
Thekla Antoniadou ◽  
Vasilios G. Igoumenou ◽  
Georgios N. Panagopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Blood Glucose Control ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Therapeutic Footwear ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Awareness

The lifetime risk for diabetic patients to develop a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is 25%. In these patients, the risk of amputation is increased and the outcome deteriorates. More than 50% of non-traumatic lower-extremity amputations are related to DFU infections and 85% of all lower-extremity amputations in patients with diabetes are preceded by an ulcer; up to 70% of diabetic patients with a DFU-related amputation die within five years of their amputation. Optimal management of patients with DFUs must include clinical awareness, adequate blood glucose control, periodic foot inspection, custom therapeutic footwear, off-loading in high-risk patients, local wound care, diagnosis and control of osteomyelitis and ischaemia. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:513-525. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180010

scholarly journals The Effects of Silver-Releasing Foam Dressings on Diabetic Foot Ulcer Healing

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1495
Author(s):  
Yu-Chi Wang ◽  
Hsiao-Chen Lee ◽  
Chien-Lin Chen ◽  
Ming-Chun Kuo ◽  
Savitha Ramachandran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wound Healing ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Healing Rate ◽  
Early Period ◽  
Foot Ulcer ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcer ◽  
Wound Management ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
High Morbidity

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a serious complication in diabetic patients and lead to high morbidity and mortality. Numerous dressings have been developed to facilitate wound healing of DFUs. This study investigated the wound healing efficacy of silver-releasing foam dressings versus silver-containing cream in managing outpatients with DFUs. Sixty patients with Wagner Grade 1 to 2 DFUs were recruited. The treatment group received silver-releasing foam dressing (Biatain® Ag Non-Adhesive Foam dressing; Coloplast, Humlebaek, Denmark). The control group received 1% silver sulfadiazine (SSD) cream. The ulcer area in the silver foam group was significantly reduced compared with that in the SSD group after four weeks of treatment (silver foam group: 76.43 ± 7.41%, SSD group: 27.00 ± 4.95%, p < 0.001). The weekly wound healing rate in the silver foam group was superior to the SSD group during the first three weeks of treatment (p < 0.05). The silver-releasing foam dressing is more effective than SSD in promoting wound healing of DFUs. The effect is more pronounced in the initial three weeks of the treatment. Thus, silver-releasing foam could be an effective wound dressing for DFUs, mainly in the early period of wound management.

scholarly journals Joint Consultation Clinic by Infectious Diseases Specialists and Podiatry team (ID-POD) Compliments the Care of Diabetic Patients with Foot Infections by Reducing Cost and Decreasing Outpatient Clinic Visits

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S328-S328
Author(s):  
Pushpalatha Bangalore Lingegowda ◽  
Say-Tat Ooi ◽  
Jyoti Somani ◽  
Chelsea Law ◽  
Boon Kiak Yeo
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Wound Debridement ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Before And After

Abstract Background Management of diabetic foot infections (DFI) is challenging and involves multidisciplinary teams to improve outcomes (1). Appropriate wound care of patients with DFI plays an important role in successfully curing infections and promote wound healing. In Singapore, Infectious Diseases (ID) specialists help in the management of DFI by recommending appropriate antibiotics for infected wounds while wound debridement are managed by Podiatrists (POD). When patients are hospitalized multidisciplinary teams including Vascular Surgery review patients. In the outpatient setting patients have multiple appointments including ID and Endocrinology etc. The time spent and costs incurred by patients for traveling to multiple appointments is considerable. A joint ID-POD clinic was initiated to reduce the cost and inconvenience for patients. Methods A joint weekly clinic was initiated in October’16 and the data was analyzed upto May’17. Finance was involved in deriving costs. The service costs for consultations payable by patients before and after the initiation of the joint clinic were compared. Results First 6 months experience of initiating the joint ID-POD clinic is reported. 35 unique patients had a total of 88 visits. 1/third of the patients had more than 2 visits to the joint clinic. For each visit to the joint clinic the patient paid 25% less compared with having separate clinics. The hospital lowered the service cost for the new clinic by 11%. This was done by minimizing the time involvement of the ID physician. Conclusion Joint ID-POD clinic for managing diabetic patients with foot infections revealed several advantages. Hospital outpatient visits for each patient decreased by 50% for those requiring care of both ID and POD, without compromising care. With the consolidation of care each individual patient had a cost savings of 25% for the joint consultation. This joint clinic while making it convenient for patients has revealed significant cost savings to patients especially for those requiring multiple visits. We recommend hospitals with high prevalence of Diabetes and Diabetic foot infections to consider joint ID-POD clinics to reduce hassle and increase saving for patients. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document