Cited by 274Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFoot and Ankle Surgery

Antibiotics versus conservative surgery for treating diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a randomized comparative trial.

Open access
Lázaro-Martínez, José Luis, Aragón-Sánchez, Javier, García-Morales, Esther·2014·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: No prospective trials have been carried out comparing antibiotic treatment alone with primarily surgical treatment in patients with diabetes and foot osteomyelitis. The aim of the current study was to compare the outcomes of the treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis in patients treated exclusively with antibiotics versus patients who underwent conservative surgery, following up the patients for a period of 12 weeks after healing. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012, a prospective randomized comparative trial (clinical trial reg. no. NCT01137903, clinicaltrials.gov) of patients with diabetes who had received a diagnosis of neuropathic foot ulcers complicated by osteomyelitis was carried out at the Diabetic Foot Unit at the Complutense University of Madrid. Patients were randomized into the following two groups: the antibiotics group (AG) and the surgical group (SG). Antibiotics were given for a period of 90 days in the AG. Patients in the SG received conservative surgery with postoperative antibiotic treatment for 10 days. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (75%) achieved primary healing in the AG, and 19 (86.3%) in the SG (P = 0.33). The median time to healing was 7 weeks (quartile [Q] 1 to Q5, Q3-Q8) in the AG and 6 weeks (Q1-Q3, Q3-Q9) in the SG (P = 0.72). The conditions of four patients from the AG worsened (16.6%), and they underwent surgery. Three patients from the SG required reoperation. No difference was found between the two groups regarding minor amputations (P = 0.336). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic therapy and surgical treatment had similar outcomes in terms of healing rates, time to healing, and short-term complications in patients with neuropathic forefoot ulcers complicated by osteomyelitis without ischemia or necrotizing soft tissue infections.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc13-1526

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pooled results from the most recent meta-analysis showed improved healing with topical oxygen therapy over sham controls (43.0% vs 28.0%; RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.37).

    “Pooled results from the most recent meta-analysis showed improved healing with topical oxygen therapy over sham controls (43.0%vs 28.0%; RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.37;P = .02).72”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [72]

  • Topical oxygen as an adjunct therapy in diabetic foot ulcers may be considered when standard of care alone has failed (<50% of ulcer healed at 4 weeks), based on recent meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews.

    “Topical oxygen as an adjunct therapy in diabetic foot ulcers may be considered when standard of care alone has failed (<50% of ulcer healed at 4 weeks), based on recent meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews.52,72”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [72]

  • In a meta-analysis of 492 patients with diabetic foot ulcers, topical oxygen therapy improved healing over sham controls (43.0% vs 28.0%; relative risk, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.37; P = .02).

    “Topical oxygen therapy Adjunct therapy in diabetic foot ulcers when standard of care alone has failed Improved healing over sham controls in a meta-analysis of 492 patients with diabetic foot ulcers: 43.0% in active group vs 28.0% in sham device group (relative risk, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.37;P = .02).72”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [72]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 274

Authors
Lázaro-Martínez, J. L., Aragón-Sánchez, J., & García-Morales, E.
Affiliations
  • Diabetic Foot Unit, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
  • Diabetic Foot Unit, La Paloma Hospital, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2014-02-11
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
789-795
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2103182900
Cited by
274
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 17 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Infections and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Foot and Ankle Surgery
Keywords
diabetic foot osteomyelitis, antibiotic therapy, conservative surgery, neuropathic foot ulcer, wound healing, healing time, minor amputation, reoperation, diabetes mellitus
MeSH terms
Aged, Amputation, Surgical, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Osteomyelitis, Postoperative Period, Prospective Studies, Reoperation, Wound Healing, Treatment Outcome, Diabetic Foot

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review