Diabetic Foot Infections: Current Diagnosis and Treatment

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a global epidemic, and diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of its most serious and costly complications. DFUs result from a complex interaction of a number of risk factors. Once the protective layer of skin is broken, deep tissues are exposed to bacterial infection that progresses rapidly. Patients with DFUs frequently require amputations of the lower limbs and, in more than half the cases, infection is the preponderant factor. Given the challenges of treating these complex infections, this paper aims to provide a hospital-based framework for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs). We propose a treatment-oriented assessment of DFIs based on a cross-examination of the medical, foot, and wound history; a systemized and detailed physical examination; and the results of complementary diagnostic procedures. We stress the need for a clinical diagnosis of DFIs and the importance of microbiological evaluation for antibiotic therapy guidance. Regarding treatment, we propose a multidisciplinary approach prioritizing invasive infection drainage, necrosis debridement, and the prompt start of empirical antibiotic therapy, followed by complete and appropriate vascular reconstruction. For severe DFIs, we suggest that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) be included in the treatment pathway. We also provide rules for managing particular situations, such as osteomyelitis. It is our hope that this protocol will improve the hospital management of DFIs and, ultimately, the prognosis of DFI patients.

In Situ Breakage of Implanon® - Two Cases of a Rare Occurrence

BACKGROUND: In situ breakage of Implanon® is a rare occurrence with unknown clinical significance. Authors report two different cases of broken Implanon® of women attended at our Family Planning Clinic. DISCUSSION: In situ implants may spontaneously and asymptomatically break, although some uncertainty relies on whether that situation has a real impact on the contraceptive effectiveness or on bleeding patterns. Even more, it can be argued if, as a result of an occurrence of that nature, the implant shall or shall not be removed before the envisaged 3-year period of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Currently, the clinical significance of implant breakage remains unknown. The decision to remove a broken or bent implant should be based on clinical judgements considering patients' wishes.