4.7 Article

FDG PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2183-z

Keywords

FDG; PET/CT; Diabetic foot; Osteomyelitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Osteomyelitis, the most serious complication of the diabetic foot, occurs in about 20 % of patients. Early diagnosis is crucial. Appropriate treatment will avoid or decrease the likelihood of amputation. The objective of this study was to assess the value of FDG PET/CT in diabetic patients with clinically suspected osteomyelitis. Enrolled in this prospective study were 39 consecutive diabetic patients (29 men and 10 women, mean age 57 years, range 28-71 years) with 46 suspected sites of foot infection. Of these 39 patients, 38 had type 2 and 1 type 1 diabetes for 4-25 years, and 28 were receiving treatment with insulin. FDG PET/CT was interpreted for the presence, intensity (SUVmax) and localization of increased FDG foci. Final diagnosis was based on histopathology and bacteriology of surgical samples, or clinical and imaging follow-up. Osteomyelitis was correctly diagnosed in 18 and excluded in 21 sites. Of 20 lesions with focal bone FDG uptake, 2 were false-positive with no further evidence of osteomyelitis. Five sites of diffuse FDG uptake involving more than one bone on CT were correctly diagnosed as diabetic osteoarthropathy. FDG PET/CT had a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 100 %, 92 % and 95 % in a patient-based analysis and 100 %, 93 % and 96 % in a lesion-based analysis, respectively, for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. FDG PET/CT was found to have high performance indices for evaluation of the diabetic foot. The PET component identified FDG-avid foci in sites of acute infection which were precisely localized on fused PET/CT images allowing correct differentiation between osteomyelitis and soft-tissue infection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available