Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (Asia Pacific)

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Two-stage Management of Forefoot Osteomyelitis in an Immunocompetent Young Adult: A Case Report

Venkataram Vellaipandi, Kamal Dureja

Keywords : Forefoot, Fusion, Immunological competence, Metatarsophalangeal joint, Osteomyelitis, Precontoured locking plates

Citation Information : Vellaipandi V, Dureja K. Two-stage Management of Forefoot Osteomyelitis in an Immunocompetent Young Adult: A Case Report. J Foot Ankle Surg Asia-Pacific 2022; 9 (4):188-191.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10040-1220

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-10-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Chronic osteomyelitis of metatarsals is commonly seen in patients with diabetic foot disease or following open fractures of the foot. However, it is extremely rare for chronic osteomyelitis of the forefoot to occur in the absence of an immunocompromised state. There has been one case report describing osteomyelitis of the first metatarsal head in an immunocompetent female. Here we present a case report of a young female without any immunocompromise presenting with forefoot osteomyelitis managed successfully in a staged manner. Case description: A 34-year-old woman presented to our Outpatient department with pain involving her right forefoot for the past 14 weeks and discharging sinus on the sole for the past 6 weeks. Clinical examination revealed the instability of the first three metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints. Radiological and hematological investigations confirmed forefoot osteomyelitis. Local and systemic immunocompromise was ruled out by a detailed evaluation. AOFAS Hallux score was recorded as 36. In the first stage, she underwent debridement and trans-articular K-wire fixation of the affected joints. Later she was taken up for a fusion of the first MTP joint using Synthes Hallux locking fusion plate. Clinical and radiological fusion was discernible by the end of 12 weeks. AOFAS Hallux score at the end of 6 months and 12 months was 84 and 92, respectively. There was no sign of recurrence of infection until the last follow-up. Conclusion: Chronic osteomyelitis of the forefoot in immunocompetent individuals is a rare clinical presentation. A satisfactory outcome in the form of a pain-free functional foot can be achieved by either joint fusion or salvage provided the infection is controlled. Clinical significance: Thorough evaluation is needed to rule out a local or systemic immune compromise in forefoot osteomyelitis in the absence of trauma. Regardless of the underlying etiology, the principles of management should be infection control and stabilization of the involved joints.


PDF Share
  1. Lavery LA, Peters EJG, Armstrong DG, et al. Risk factors for developing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot wounds. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2009;83(3):347–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.11.030
  2. Fujii M, Terashi H, Yokono K. Surgical treatment strategy for diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis. Wound Repair Regen 2016;24(2):447–453. DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12418
  3. Lee HJ, Chin KM, Lee S, et al. Maximally disfiguring surgery for forefoot osteomyelitis: Time for a rethink? Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2020;19(1):99–104. DOI: 10.1177/1534734619876841
  4. Qin C-H, Zhou C-H, Song H-J, et al. Infected bone resection plus adjuvant antibiotic-impregnated calcium sulfate versus infected bone resection alone in the treatment of diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20(1):246. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2635-8
  5. Anagnostakos K, Koch K. Osteomyelitis of the first metatarsal head treated with joint-preserving surgery and a synthetic resorbable bone graft substitute: A case report. J Foot Ankle Surg 2018;57(5):1010–1013. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.12.008
  6. Niazi NS, Drampalos E, Morrissey N, et al. Adjuvant antibiotic loaded bio composite in the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis - A multicentre study. Foot (Edinb) 2019;39:22–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.foot.2019.01.005
  7. Michail M, Jude E, Liaskos C, et al. The performance of serum inflammatory markers for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with osteomyelitis. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2013;12(2):94–99. DOI: 10.1177/1534734613486152
  8. Chan CW, Rudins A. Foot biomechanics during walking and running. Mayo Clin Proc 1994;69(5):448–461. DOI: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)61642-5
  9. Cichero MJ, Yates BJ, Joyce ASD, et al. Different fixation constructs and the risk of non-union following first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Surg 2020;S1268-7731(20):30221–30226. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2020.10.006
  10. Hyer CF, Glover JP, Berlet GC, et al. Cost comparison of crossed screws versus dorsal plate construct for first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis. J Foot Ankle Surg 2008;47(1):13–18. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2007.08.016
  11. Mayer SA, Zelenski NA, DeOrio JK, et al. A comparison of nonlocking semitubular plates and precontoured locking plates for first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 2014;35(5):438–444. DOI: 10.1177/1071100714520695
  12. Myerson MS, Schon LC, McGuigan FX, et al. Result of arthrodesis of the hallux metatarsophalangeal joint using bone graft for restoration of length. Foot Ankle Int 2000;21(4):297–306. DOI: 10.1177/107110070002100405
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.