Several nonbiodegradable and biodegradable antibiotic cement delivery systems are available for the delivery of antibiotics for adjunctive therapy in the management of osteomyelitis. A major nonbiodegradable delivery system is polymethylmethacrylate beads. Antibiotics that can be incorporated into this delivery system are limited to the heat-stable antibiotics vancomycin and aminoglycosides, tobramycin being the most popular. Calcium sulfate and hydroxyapatite (Cerament Bone Void Filler) is a unique biocompatible and biodegradable ceramic bone void filler that can successfully deliver heat-stable and heat-unstable antibiotics in musculoskeletal infections. The use of Cerament as antibiotic beads has not been previously reported. An off-label case of diabetic foot osteomyelitis successfully managed with surgical bone resection and vancomycin Cerament antibiotic beads is presented. Subsequent surgery for the bone infection and staged removal of the antibiotic beads was not necessary. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 101(3): 259–264, 2011)
Background: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis is a common infection where treatment involves multiple services, including infectious diseases, podiatry, and pathology. Despite its ubiquity in the hospital, consensus on much of its management is lacking.
Methods: Representatives from infectious diseases, podiatry, and pathology interested in quality improvement developed multidisciplinary institutional recommendations culminating in an educational intervention describing optimal diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). Knowledge acquisition was assessed by preintervention and postintervention surveys. Inpatients with forefoot DFO were retrospectively reviewed before and after intervention to assess frequency of recommended diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers, including appropriate definition of surgical bone margins, definitive histopathology reports, and unnecessary intravenous antibiotics or prolonged antibiotic courses.
Results: A postintervention survey revealed significant improvements in knowledge of antibiotic treatment duration and the role of oral antibiotics in managing DFO. There were 104 consecutive patients in the preintervention cohort (April 1, 2018, to April 1, 2019) and 32 patients in the postintervention cohort (November 5, 2019, to March 1, 2020), the latter truncated by changes in hospital practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Noncategorizable or equivocal disease reports decreased from before intervention to after intervention (27.0% versus 3.3%, respectively; P = .006). We observed nonsignificant improvement in correct bone margin definition (74.0% versus 87.5%; P = .11), unnecessary peripherally inserted central catheter line placement (18.3% versus 9.4%; P = .23), and unnecessary prolonged antibiotics (21.9% versus 5.0%; P = .10). In addition, by working as an interdisciplinary group, many solvable misunderstandings were identified, and processes were adjusted to improve the quality of care provided to these patients.
Conclusions: This quality improvement initiative regarding management of DFO led to improved provider knowledge and collaborative competency between these three departments, improvements in definitive pathology reports, and nonsignificant improvement in several other clinical endpoints. Creating collaborative competency may be an effective local strategy to improve knowledge of diabetic foot infection and may generalize to other common multidisciplinary conditions.