ABSTRACT
Multiple approaches were employed to detect pathogens from bone margins associated with Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis (DFO). Intra-operative bone specimens of 14 consecutive subjects with suspected DFO were collected over a six-month study period from Liverpool Hospital. Infected bone and a proximal bone margins presumed to be 'clean/non-infected' were collected. Bone material was subjected to conventional culture, DNA sequencing and microscopy. In total, eight of 14 (57%) proximal bone margins had no growth by conventional culture but were identified in all proximal bone specimens by DNA sequencing. Proximal margins had lower median total microbial counts than infected specimens, but these differences were not statistically significant. Pathogens identified by sequencing in infected specimens were identified in proximal margins and the microbiomes were similar (ANOSIM = 0.02, p = 0.59). Using a combination of SEM and/or PNA-FISH, we visualized the presence of microorganisms in infected bone specimens and their corresponding proximal margins of seven patients (50%) with DFO. We identify that bacteria can still reside in what seems to be proximal 'clean' margins. The significance and implications of clinical outcomes requires further analysis from a larger sample size that incorporates differences in surgical and post-operative approaches, correlating any outcomes back to culture-sequence findings.
Subject(s)
Bacteria/isolation & purification , Bacteriological Techniques/methods , Bone and Bones/microbiology , Diabetic Foot/microbiology , Histocytochemistry/methods , Metagenomics/methods , Osteomyelitis/microbiology , Bacteria/classification , Bacteria/genetics , Bone and Bones/surgery , Diabetic Foot/pathology , Diabetic Foot/surgery , Humans , In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence , Microscopy, Electron, Scanning , Osteomyelitis/pathology , Osteomyelitis/surgery , Sequence Analysis, DNAABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The post-Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial era has seen a dramatic decline in the practice of carotid artery stenting (CAS). A retrospective review of prospectively collected CAS outcomes over a 10-year period by a single operator was undertaken to determine if this change in practice is justified and to identify the place of carotid stenting in current practice. METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine carotid stent procedures were undertaken on 137 patients from 2002 to 2012. Cases were selected for CAS only if they fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the SAPPHIRE trial. Post-procedural outcomes were compared against those of a contemporaneous cohort of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) by the same operator and against published meta-analyses. The measure of CAS durability was need for re-intervention, based on the presence of ultrasound-detected re-stenosis >70%. RESULTS: No significant difference was identified in 30-days' complication rates between patients undergoing CAS and those having CEA. Compared to published meta-analyses of CAS, our practice was accompanied by a significantly lower rate of peri-procedural stroke (1.26% versus 6%, P = 0.014) while carrying equivalent 30-days' death and myocardial infarction. Four stented arteries had re-intervention, due to asymptomatic in-stent stenosis of >70%. Further intervention was declined in a fifth case. This represents a re-stenosis rate of 3.1% over a mean follow-up of 40.2 ± 27.6 months. DISCUSSION: CAS can provide a safe and durable treatment option for selected patients with carotid artery disease, in the hands of appropriately trained proceduralists who meet accepted standards of practice.
