Skip to main content

Table 2 Current management practices

From: Opinions about the most appropriate surgical management of diabetes-related foot infection: a cross-sectional survey

  Total Vascular surgeons Orthopaedic surgeons p-value
Determining extent of infection prior to surgical treatment 1
Based on international classification system 13/49 (26.5%) 9/29 (31.0%) 4/20 (20.0%) 2
Based on extent of erythema 27/49 (55.1%) 18/29 (62.1%) 9/20 (45.0%)
Based on extent of skin with raised temps 19/49 (38.8%) 14/29 (48.3%) 5/20 (25.0%)
Based on amount and type of wound exudate 21/49 (42.9%) 14/29 (48.3%) 7/20 (35.0%)
Based on extent of swelling 20/49 (40.8%) 15/29 (51.7%) 5/20 (25.0%)
Based on degree of tissue necrosis 30/49 (61.2%) 19/29 (65.5%) 11/20 (55.0%)
Others 18/49 (36.7%) 6/29 (20.7%) 12/20 (60.0%)
Wound sampling prior to surgical treatment
Tissue or bone biopsy 17/49 (34.7%) 4/29 (13.8%) 13/20 (65.0%) p < 0.001 3
Wound swab 27/49 (55.1%) 22/29 (75.9%) 5/20 (25.0%)
Others 5/49 (10.2%) 3/29 (10.3%) 2/20 (10.0%)
Guideline usage
Yes 14/49 (28.6%) 10/29 (34.5%) 4/20 (7.4%) P = 0.435 4
No 35/49 (71.4%) 19/29 (65.5%) 16/20 (29.6%)
Antibiotic choice
Piperacillin/Tazobactam 21/41 (51.2%) 13/22 (59.1%) 8/19 (42.1%) p = 0.871 3
Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid 8/41 (19.5%) 4/22 (18.2%) 4/19 (21.1%)
Cefazolin 5/41 (12.2%) 2/22 (9.1%) 3/19 (15.8%)
Defer to guidelines or infectious diseases 5/41 (12.2%) 2/22 (9.1%) 3/19 (15.8%)
Other antibiotics 2/41 (4.9%) 1/22 (4.5%) 1/19 (5.3%)
Antibiotic route
IV 31/40 (77.5%) 18/21 (85.7%) 13/19 (68.4%) p = 0.518 3
IV + Oral 2/40 (5.0%) 1/21 (4.8%) 1/19 (5.3%)
Defer to guidelines or infectious diseases physicians 5/40 (12.5%) 2/21 (9.5%) 3/19 (15.8%)
Others 2/40 (5.0%) 0/21 (0.0%) 2/19 (10.5%)
Wound dressing selection 1
Iodine-based dressings 26/42 (61.9%) 14/22 (63.6%) 12/20 (60.0%) 2
Betadine paint 10/42 (23.8%) 9/22 (40.9%) 1/20 (5.0%)
Saline soaked packing 19/42 (45.2%) 12/22 (54.5%) 7/20 (35.0%)
Betadine soaked packing 13/42 (31.0%) 10/22 (45.5%) 3/20 (15.0%)
Chlorohexidine-based dressings 1/42 (2.4%) 0/22 (0.0%) 1/20 (5.0%)
Silver-based dressings 23/42 (54.8%) 11/22 (50.0%) 12/20 (60.0%)
Honey-based dressings 1/42 (2.4%) 0/22 (0.0%) 1/20 (5.0%)
Negative pressure therapy 38/42 (90.5%) 19/22 (86.4%) 19/20 (95.0%)
No dressing 2/42 (4.8%) 2/22 (9.1%) 0/20 (0.0%)
Others 9/42 (21.4%) 8/22 (36.4%) 1/20 (5.0%)
Wound closure after debridement 1
Healing by primary closure 19/42 (45.2%) 10/22 (45.5%) 9/20 (45.0%) 2
Healing by delayed primary closure 27/42 (64.3%) 13/22 (59.1%) 14/20 (70.0%)
Superficial skin graft 18/42 (42.9%) 13/22 (59.1%) 5/20 (25.0%)
Healing by secondary intention 39/42 (92.9%) 20/22 (90.9%) 19/20 (95.0%)
  1. 1% do not add up to 100% as participants could select multiple responses, 2 As responders could indicate a positive response to more than one option statistical testing was not possible due to the dependence of responses, 3 Fisher-Freeman-Halton test, 4 Yates continuity correction