BACKGROUND: Few studies exist to guide the management of patients with stage 4 pressure ulcers with possible underlying osteomyelitis. We hypothesized that infectious disease (ID) physicians would vary widely in their approach to such patients. METHODS: The Emerging Infections Network distributed a 10-question electronic survey in 2018 to 1332 adult ID physicians in different practice settings to determine their approach to such patients. RESULTS: Of the 558 respondents (response rate: 42%), 17% had managed no such patient in the past year. Of the remaining 464 respondents, 60% usually felt confident in diagnosing osteomyelitis; the strongest clinical indicator of osteomyelitis reported was palpable or visible bone at the ulcer base. Approaches to diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with visible and palpable bone varied: 41% of respondents would assume osteomyelitis, 27% would attempt pressure off-loading first, and 22% would perform diagnostic testing immediately. Preferred tests for osteomyelitis were bone biopsy (for culture and histopathology) and magnetic resonance imaging. Respondents differed widely on favored route(s) (intravenous, oral, or both) and duration of antimicrobial therapy but would treat longer in the absence, vs presence, of full surgical debridement (P < .001). Overall, 62% of respondents opined that osteomyelitis under stage 4 pressure ulcers is usually or almost always treated excessively, and most (59%) suggested multiple topics for future research. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding osteomyelitis underlying stage 4 pressure ulcers, ID physicians reported widely divergent diagnostic and treatment approaches. Most of the reported practice is not supported by the available evidence, which is quite limited and of low quality. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2019.
BACKGROUND: Few studies exist to guide the management of patients with stage 4 pressure ulcers with possible underlying osteomyelitis. We hypothesized that infectious disease (ID) physicians would vary widely in their approach to such patients. METHODS: The Emerging Infections Network distributed a 10-question electronic survey in 2018 to 1332 adult ID physicians in different practice settings to determine their approach to such patients. RESULTS: Of the 558 respondents (response rate: 42%), 17% had managed no such patient in the past year. Of the remaining 464 respondents, 60% usually felt confident in diagnosing osteomyelitis; the strongest clinical indicator of osteomyelitis reported was palpable or visible bone at the ulcer base. Approaches to diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with visible and palpable bone varied: 41% of respondents would assume osteomyelitis, 27% would attempt pressure off-loading first, and 22% would perform diagnostic testing immediately. Preferred tests for osteomyelitis were bone biopsy (for culture and histopathology) and magnetic resonance imaging. Respondents differed widely on favored route(s) (intravenous, oral, or both) and duration of antimicrobial therapy but would treat longer in the absence, vs presence, of full surgical debridement (P < .001). Overall, 62% of respondents opined that osteomyelitis under stage 4 pressure ulcers is usually or almost always treated excessively, and most (59%) suggested multiple topics for future research. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding osteomyelitis underlying stage 4 pressure ulcers, ID physicians reported widely divergent diagnostic and treatment approaches. Most of the reported practice is not supported by the available evidence, which is quite limited and of low quality. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2019.
Authors: G G Whiteneck; S W Charlifue; H L Frankel; M H Fraser; B P Gardner; K A Gerhart; K R Krishnan; R R Menter; I Nuseibeh; D J Short Journal: Paraplegia Date: 1992-09
Authors: Harold Brem; Jason Maggi; David Nierman; Linda Rolnitzky; David Bell; Robert Rennert; Michael Golinko; Alan Yan; Courtney Lyder; Bruce Vladeck Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: M Thornhill-Joynes; F Gonzales; C A Stewart; G C Kanel; G C Lee; D A Capen; F L Sapico; H N Canawati; J Z Montgomerie Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1986-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Alison B Rapoport; Leah S Fischer; Scott Santibanez; Susan E Beekmann; Philip M Polgreen; Christopher F Rowley Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: B Davido; L Noussair; F El Sayed; K Jaffal; H Le Liepvre; D Marmouset; T Bauer; J L Herrmann; M Rottman; A C Cremieux; A Saleh-Mghir Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-04-17 Impact factor: 4.423