Purpose: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is the most frequent infection associated with diabetic foot ulcers, occurs in >20% of moderate infections and 50%–60% of severe infections, and is associated with high rates of amputation. DFO represents a challenge in both diagnosis and therapy, and many consequences of its condition are related to late diagnosis, delayed referral, or ill-indicated treatment. This review aimed to analyze the current evidence on DFO management and to discuss advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options. Methods: A narrative review of the evidence was begun by searching Medline and PubMed databases for studies using the keywords “management”, “diabetic foot”, “osteomyelitis”, and “diabetic foot osteomyelitis” from 2008 to 2018. Results: We found a great variety of studies focusing on both medical and surgical therapies showing a similar rate of effectiveness and outcomes; however, the main factors in choosing one over the other seem to be associated with the presence of soft-tissue infection or ischemia and the clinical presentation of DFO. Conclusion: Further randomized controlled trials with large samples and long-term follow-up are necessary to demonstrate secondary outcomes, such as recurrence, recurrent ulceration, and reinfection associated with both medical and surgical options.

A systematic review and quality assessment was performed to assess the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis by medical or surgical treatment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used. All selected studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. The literature was revised using PubMed (Medline) and Embase (Elsevier) up to September 2020 to identify clinical trials assessing medical or surgical treatment to manage diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A total of six clinical trials that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 308 participants. Healing rate, complete closure of the wound, and type of complications were the outcomes evaluated. Risk of bias assessment showed that only two of the six clinical trials included in the systematic review had a low risk of bias. Based on our findings, we believe that the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis remains challenging. There are few high-quality clinical trials that both stratify clinical presentations and compare these treatments. We conclude that the available evidence is insufficient to identify the best option to cure diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

Recent systematic reviews of plantar warts continue to consider cryotherapy as one of the treatments of choice, but this method appears to have lower cure rates than alternative treatments. A systematic review using meta‐analyses of the efficacy of cryotherapy in plantar warts treatment was performed. Systematic electronic searches were conducted. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of plantar warts. Risk‐of‐bias assessment was based on Cochrane Handbook recommendations. Meta‐analyses used Review Manager v5.4.1 software. Cryotherapy appears to have lower cure rates than other treatments (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12–0.78) with substantial heterogeneity (I ² = 80%). A second subgroup analysis had low heterogeneity (I ² = 28.2%). Subgroup analysis showed that plantar wart cure rates were significantly lower with cryotherapy compared to the physical treatment group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.49) with substantial heterogeneity (I ² = 79%), and antiviral, chemotherapy, and retinoid group (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14–0.66) without heterogeneity (I ² = 0%). Intralesional versus spray‐on cryotherapy appears to be more effective (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09–0.48). No difference in efficacy between two rounds of 10‐s and four rounds of 5‐s freeze–thaw cycles in cryotherapy was found. Evidence of the superiority of antivirals and chemotherapy over cryotherapy in the treatment of plantar warts was found. However, no evidence supports the superiority or inferiority of cryotherapy compared to other treatments.

Background: A systematic review was conducted to investigate the prevalence of onychomycosis in patients with diabetes. The association of onychomycosis with risk factors in patients with diabetic foot syndrome was also examined.Methods: The recommendations in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis (PRISMA) checklist were applied, and the included studies were assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) method. Searches were conducted in October 2022 using PubMed (Medline) and Scopus for clinical studies, clinical trials, comparative studies, observational studies, and randomised clinical trials or controlled clinical trials addressing the prevalence and consequences of onychomycosis in patients with diabetes, diagnoses or treatments. Two authors performed the study selection and data extraction, and any discrepancies between the two reviewers were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.Results: The systematic review included ten studies that met the inclusion criteria, and these studies enrolled 5664 patients with diabetes. Among these patients, 29.18% had onychomycosis that was mainly caused byTrichophyton rubrum. A significant association was found between the occurrence of onychomycosis and the presence of diabetic neuropathy (p = .012) and elevated glycosylated haemoglobin values (p = .039). There was no significant association between onychomycosis and ulceration (p = .185). Eight studies had a grade 4 level of evidence and a grade C recommendation, and one study had a grade 1b level of evidence and a grade A recommendation.Conclusion: The information described in the literature is insufficient and heterogeneous regarding the association of risk factors and ulceration in patients with diabetic foot compared with developing onychomycosis. There is also a need to implement onychomycosis diagnostic testing instead of relying only on a clinical diagnosis. Additional prospective, randomised, comparative studies are needed to increase the quality of studies in the literature.

The methods that are used for the diagnostic confirmation of human papillomavirus (HPV) include excisional biopsy and histopathological studies or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). They are invasive, laborious, and subject to ethical restrictions due to the benign nature of these warts. This study aims to analyse the accuracy of noninvasive swab samples to diagnose plantar warts. Fifty plantar warts were included in the study. Skin swabs and hyperkeratosis skin scales were collected from each wart. Multiplex PCR was performed to detect and type the HPVs. The prevalence of HPV in this study was 90% when the sample was obtained using the wart scraping method and 94% when it was obtained using swabs and the new method. In 45 of the 45 positive samples (sensitivity: 100%), the result between the wart scab and wart swab were almost identical. The genotyping result was identical in all 46 patients who had a positive result using both methods. The swab method appears to be a simple and accurate technique to diagnose plantar warts due to HPV. It is a noninvasive technique that could be performed even by inexperienced professionals and in patients with pain or a fear of needles.

This study analysed the bacterial diversity, antibiotic susceptibility, and resistance in patients with complications of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). A retrospective observational study was carried out between September 2019 and September 2022 and involved 215 outpatients with a diagnosis of DFO at a specialized diabetic foot unit. A total of 204 positive bone cultures were isolated, including 62.7% monomicrobial cultures, and 37.3% were formed with at least two microorganisms. We observed that Proteus spp., Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Corynebacterium were the most frequently isolated microorganisms and accounted for more than 10% of the DFO cases. With stratification by Gram-positive (GP) and Gram-negative (GN) bacteria, we observed that 91.6% of cultures presented at least one GP bacteria species, and 50.4% presented at least one GN bacteria species. The most common GP species were CoNS (29%), S. aureus (25.8%), and Corynebacterium spp. (14%). The most frequent GN species consisted of Proteus spp. (32%), P. aeruginosa (23.3%), and E. coli (17.5%). The main antibiotics with resistance to GP-dominated infections were penicillins without β-lactamase inhibitor, and those in GN-dominated infections were sulfonamides and penicillins without β-lactamase. Significant differences were not observed in mean healing time in DFU with acute osteomyelitis (12.76 weeks (4.50;18)) compared to chronic osteomyelitis (15.31 weeks (7;18.25); p = 0.101) and when comparing cases with soft tissue infection (15.95 (6;20)) and those without such an infection (16.59 (7.25;19.75), p = 0.618). This study shows that when treatment of DFO is based on early surgical treatment, the type of DFO and the presence of soft infection are not associated with different or worse prognoses.