The Use of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement for Infection or Mechanical Support in Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.1
Foot & ankle specialist Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1177/19386400241274624
Kaissar Yammine, Jad Mansour, Joeffroy Otayek, Bilal Alqaysi, Jimmy Daher, Chahine Assi
{"title":"The Use of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement for Infection or Mechanical Support in Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Kaissar Yammine, Jad Mansour, Joeffroy Otayek, Bilal Alqaysi, Jimmy Daher, Chahine Assi","doi":"10.1177/19386400241274624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundDiabetic foot infections are difficult to eradicate and could lead to serious complications such as multiple surgeries, amputation and mortality. Culture-based IV antibiotics and particularly amputation are usually the available options. Only few studies articles reported the use of cement impregnated with antibiotics to fill temporarily or permanently a bone defect, but with no evidence synthesis yet. Therefore, this study aims at assessing the outcomes of the use of antibiotic-impregnated cement for infection or mechanical support in diabetic foot osteomyelitis.MethodsA systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We searched multiple electronic databases using the terms \"osteomyelitis AND cement AND diabetic AND foot.\" The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tool.ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria combining 82 patients with 85 procedures. With a mean follow-up period of 22 ±14.6 months, the meta-analytical results were as follows: (1) the weighted healing rate was 85.2%, (2) 63.6% of cement were kept in place, (3) 8.2% of cement had to be exchanged, (4) 24.4% of placed cement had to be removed, (5) minor amputation following cement placement was 13.4%, and (6) the rate of secondary surgery was 18.7%, with arthrodesis being the most common (94%).ConclusionThere are limited studies available detailing the outcomes of cement use in diabetic foot osteomyelitis. In the case of the difficult-to-heal osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot and whenever a peripheral bone rim could be preserved, filling the void within to deliver local infection control and to assure mechanical resistance for ambulation could be a non-radical limb preserving option.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":"19 3","pages":"309-316"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle specialist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400241274624","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundDiabetic foot infections are difficult to eradicate and could lead to serious complications such as multiple surgeries, amputation and mortality. Culture-based IV antibiotics and particularly amputation are usually the available options. Only few studies articles reported the use of cement impregnated with antibiotics to fill temporarily or permanently a bone defect, but with no evidence synthesis yet. Therefore, this study aims at assessing the outcomes of the use of antibiotic-impregnated cement for infection or mechanical support in diabetic foot osteomyelitis.MethodsA systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We searched multiple electronic databases using the terms "osteomyelitis AND cement AND diabetic AND foot." The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tool.ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria combining 82 patients with 85 procedures. With a mean follow-up period of 22 ±14.6 months, the meta-analytical results were as follows: (1) the weighted healing rate was 85.2%, (2) 63.6% of cement were kept in place, (3) 8.2% of cement had to be exchanged, (4) 24.4% of placed cement had to be removed, (5) minor amputation following cement placement was 13.4%, and (6) the rate of secondary surgery was 18.7%, with arthrodesis being the most common (94%).ConclusionThere are limited studies available detailing the outcomes of cement use in diabetic foot osteomyelitis. In the case of the difficult-to-heal osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot and whenever a peripheral bone rim could be preserved, filling the void within to deliver local infection control and to assure mechanical resistance for ambulation could be a non-radical limb preserving option.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.

使用抗生素浸渍水泥治疗糖尿病足骨髓炎感染或机械支持:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
糖尿病足感染很难根除,并可能导致严重的并发症,如多次手术、截肢和死亡。基于培养的静脉注射抗生素,特别是截肢通常是可用的选择。只有少数研究文章报道了使用抗生素浸渍水泥暂时或永久填充骨缺损,但尚未有证据合成。因此,本研究旨在评估糖尿病足骨髓炎患者使用抗生素浸渍水泥治疗感染或机械支持的结果。方法根据系统评价和meta分析的首选报告项目进行系统评价。我们用“骨髓炎、水泥、糖尿病和足”这几个词搜索了多个电子数据库。采用乔安娜布里格斯研究所评估工具对纳入研究的质量进行评估。结果6项研究符合纳入标准,共纳入82例患者和85种手术方式。平均随访22±14.6个月,meta分析结果如下:(1)加权愈合率为85.2%,(2)固定水泥率为63.6%,(3)置换水泥率为8.2%,(4)置换水泥率为24.4%,(5)置入水泥后轻微截肢率为13.4%,(6)二次手术率为18.7%,其中关节融合术发生率最高(94%)。结论:目前关于骨水泥治疗糖尿病足骨髓炎疗效的研究有限。对于难以治愈的糖尿病足骨髓炎,无论何时可以保留外周骨缘,填充其中的空隙以提供局部感染控制并确保行走的机械阻力可能是一种非根治性的肢体保留选择。证据等级:四级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书