International Journal of Infectious Diseases (2005) 9, 127—138 http://intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/ijid REVIEW Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis: what have we learned from 30 years of clinical trials? Luca Lazzarini a,*, Benjamin A. Lipsky b, Jon T. Mader c,ä a Department of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, S. Bortolo Hospital, 36100 Vicenza, Italy Medical Service, and Antibiotic Research Clinic, VA Puget Sound Health Care System and Department of Medicine University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA c Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA b Received 12 January 2004; received in revised form 1 July 2004; accepted 29 September 2004 Corresponding Editor: Marguerite Neill, Pawtucket, USA KEYWORDS Osteomyelitis; Infection; Bone; Antibiotic; Therapy; Treatment Summary Objectives and design: To determine the most appropriate approach to antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis, the medical literature for articles published from 1968 to 2000 was reviewed. Results: Ninety-three clinical trials in children and adults were identified using almost every antibiotic class. Most studies were non-comparative and the comparative trials involved relatively few patients. Publications generally did not provide clinically important information regarding infection staging or classification, surgical treatment provided, or the presence of orthopedic hardware. The median duration of follow-up after treatment was only 12 months. The clinical outcome was better for acute than chronic osteomyelitis in eight of the 12 studies allowing comparison. In the comparative trials, few statistically significant differences were observed between the tested treatments. In one small trial, the combination of nafcillin plus rifampin was more effective than nafcillin alone. In pediatric osteomyelitis, oral therapy with cloxacillin was more effective than tetracycline in one study, and oral clindamycin was as effective as parenteral antistaphylococcal penicillins in another. In several investigations oral fluoroquinolones were as effective as standard parenteral treatments. Conclusions: Although the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy remains undefined, most investigators treated patients for about six weeks. Despite three decades of research, the available literature on the treatment of osteomyelitis is inadequate to determine the best agent(s), route, or duration of antibiotic therapy. # 2005 International Society for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +390444993998; fax: +390444993616. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Lazzarini). ä Deceased. 1201-9712/$30.00 # 2005 International Society for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2004.09.009 128 Introduction The introduction of antibiotics for treating bacterial infections revolutionized the natural history of many of these common and deadly diseases. In the first decades of the antibiotic era, the remarkable clinical successes with antibiotics led to an atmosphere of optimism. Based upon these early successes, Florey and Florey believed that osteomyelitis, if treated with antibiotics early, would no longer be a surgical condition.1 With a mounting record of clinical failures, however, this optimism vanished within a few years. By 1968, Bick’s book reviewing 25 years of experience with antibiotic treatment led him to conclude that it was invaluable for eliminating osteomyelitis-related septicemia and abscesses, but that chronic bone infection could only be cured with surgery.2 Today, most authorities still believe that chronic osteomyelitis generally requires both antibiotic and surgical treatment.3 But, despite continued research, most aspects of antibiotic treatment for osteomyelitis are still poorly understood. Data are sparse about which are the most effective antimicrobial agents, for how long, and by what routes they should be administered for various types of osteomyelitis. Animal models have been useful in studying this complex disease, but they cannot replicate many aspects of human bone infection.4 Thus, the treatment of osteomyelitis is still mostly based on expert opinions, and no consensus guidelines are currently available. Many human trials on treating osteomyelitis in the last 30 years have been published, but only the randomized ones have been systematically reviewed. To supplement the data from randomized trials with those of non-controlled trials, the most relevant studies of antibiotic therapy of human osteomyelitis published between 1968 and 2000 are reviewed here. Materials and methods All clinical studies investigating antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis were searched by means of the MEDLINE search engine (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA), applying no language limitation. The terms ‘antibiotic’, ‘antimicrobial’, ‘therapy’, ‘treatment’, ‘bone’, and ‘osteomyelitis’ were used as keywords in various combinations. Studies were found that enrolled both pediatric and adult cases of osteomyelitis, recognizing that the former are more often hematogenous and the latter more often contiguous infections. While there are other commonly used methods of treating osteomyelitis, e.g., local administration of antibiotics by beads, this L. Lazzarini et al. review was aimed exclusively at systemic antibiotic therapy. After reading the abstracts of all retrieved articles, 120 papers published between January 1968 and January 2001 were identified as possibly being clinical trials. Trials were selected for analysis only when they met all of the following criteria: (1) more than six cases of osteomyelitis were treated; (2) data about the clinical outcome of the infections were available; and, (3) a single drug or class of drugs was used, or, in the case of comparative studies, in at least one arm of the study. Studies about ‘bone and joint infections’, or infections other than osteomyelitis (such as endocarditis, meningitis) were included only if separate data about the outcome of bone infection were provided. Patients identified as having prosthetic joint infections or infected orthopedic hardware or implants were not included because these infections generally require surgical interventions and do not respond to antibiotic therapy alone. The criterion for requiring at least six treated cases was arbitrarily selected by the authors to avoid considering small anecdotal studies and because one potentially relevant comparative trial included only six patients per arm. Of the 123 papers initially identified, it was not possible to obtain three of them despite requests to an inter-library loan service, five were discarded because they were review articles rather than clinical trials, five because they pooled the outcome of different musculoskeletal infections, five because they enrolled less than six cases of osteomyelitis, four because of incomplete outcome data, and seven because they utilized many different antibiotics and pooled the outcome of all the patients. For each study the following were recorded: the study design, criteria for diagnosis of osteomyelitis (clinical, microbiological, radiological, histological), name(s) of the antibiotic(s) used, mean age and sex of the patients, number of pediatric patients, number of cases treated, number of cases of long bone osteomyelitis, use of a classification system, presence of orthopedic hardware and whether or not it was removed, bone culture isolates, duration of antibiotic treatment, occurrence of side effects requiring treatment discontinuation, antibiotic levels in serum and bone, number of patients undergoing surgery, treatment outcome, explanation for failure given by the authors, and duration of follow-up after treatment. Data were analyzed by means of statistical software (Epi Info 2000, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA). Because different definitions of outcome were used in the studies reviewed, the authors devised their own. For each Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis 129 study outcomes were defined as follows: ‘cure’ was the absence of clinical evidence of osteomyelitis after the follow-up period; ‘failure’ was any outcome not fulfilling the criteria for ‘cure’. Discontinuation of treatment due to side effects of the study drug was considered separately. Results Study features and overall population enrolled This review uncovered 93 studies that fulfilled the selection criteria, with a total of 2476 cases of osteomyelitis.5—97 Among these, 17 studies (18%) were comparative, ten of which were randomized; the other 76 were non-comparative. In the studies providing this information, 1090 patients (44%) were male, and the mean age was 42 years (range 5—66 years, 12.2 [SD]). The mean number of patients enrolled per study was 26 (range 6—169, 24.5 [SD]); 483 of the cases were pediatric osteomyelitis and 603 were long bone osteomyelitis. The authors diagnosed osteomyelitis by various combinations of clinical, radiological and microbiological findings in 29 studies. The generally accepted standard criterion for diagnosis, a bone biopsy for microbiology, was mandatory in only 24 studies, four of which also required a histological diagnosis. Four studies required clinical, microbiological, and radiological criteria, whereas in seven studies either compatible clinical and microbiological criteria, or microbiological and radiological criteria, were sufficient. Five other studies required just clinical and radiological criteria, not microbiological confirmation. No criteria for diagnosis were specified in 24 studies. A classification of the type of osteomyelitis was provided in 45 (48%) of the studies; ‘acute or chronic’ was used in 44, the Cierny—Mader classification3 was used in one, and a radiological classification was used in one. Information about hardware implantation was available in 12 studies (89 patients) and information about hardware removal was provided in 11 studies (17 patients). Data about the duration of the antibiotic treatment were available in 88 studies; in these, the mean duration of treatment was 51 days and the median duration of treatment was 40 days (range 6—180 days, 42.29 [SD]). Serum and bone antibiotic levels were measured in 32 and 11 studies, respectively. Information about surgical treatment for osteomyelitis was available in 27 studies, involving 455 patients. Dura- Table 1 Major findings of the studies using anti-staphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of staphylococcal osteomyelitis. Author (ref) Drug(s) Duration of treatment in weeks Duration of follow-up in months Number of cured patients/total Severe adverse events Norden*5 Nafcillin iv vs nafcillin iv + rifampin po 6 6 no Norden*6 Nafcillin iv vs nafcillin iv + rifampin po 6 24 Leder7 Bell8 Flucloxacillin, continuous iv infusion Cloxacillin po or dicloxacillin po 6 24 15 7—30 7/8 6/7 c 2/8 8/10 c 9/11 18/19 Hodgkin9 Bryson10 Cloxacillin po or dicloxacillin po Dicloxacillin po 24 6 17 60 Cole11 Hubbard*12 Cloxacillin po Cloxacillin po vs tetracycline po 6 4 24 NA Hedstrom*13 Cloxacillin po vs dicloxacillin po 24 NA 9/14 18/18 ch 53/64 (83%) 14/27 2/19 ch,c 4/6 6/6 ch, ad no no 1 allergic reaction 2 hepatotoxicity no no no 1 with dicloxacillin *: Comparative trial; GPC: Gram-positive cocci; GNR: Gram-negative rods; ad: adult; ch: children; c: chronic osteomyelitis; a: acute osteomyelitis; iv: intravenous; im: intramuscular; po: oral; Unless otherwise specified, the studies involved adult osteomyelitis. 130 L. Lazzarini et al. Table 2 Major findings of the studies of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, carbapenems and monobactams for treating osteomyelitis. Author (ref) Drug(s) Commonest microorganism(s) Duration of treatment (weeks) Duration of follow up (months) Number of cured patients/total (%) Severe side effects Gentry14 Ticarcillin-clavulanic acid iv Ticarcillin-clavulanic acid iv GPC 4 9 22/36 (61) S. aureus NA 8/8 S. aureus 22 5/9 no NA 4—6 NA 4/8 24/27 (89) no GPC 2—6 NA GPC and GNR NA 36 GPC and GNR 4 6 Giamarellou25 Greenberg26 Scully27 Prybil28 Simons29 Conrad29 Ticarcillin-clavulanic acid iv vs moxalactam iv Ticarcillin-clavulanic acid iv Ampicillin-sulbactam iv vs clindamycin po Ampicillin-sulbactam iv vs cefotaxime iv Ampicillin-sulbactam iv vs ceftriaxone iv Aztreonam iv Aztreonam iv Aztreonam iv Aztreonam iv Aztreonam iv Aztreonam iv 1 (followed by 4 weeks with other oral drugs) 4 2 (bleeding, urticaria) no GNR GNR P. aeruginosa P. aeruginosa P. aeruginosa P. aeruginosa 10 3—15 6—15 1 12 6 Mogabgab30 MacGregor31 Moxalactam iv Imipenem iv 6 4 NA 3 2 4a 6c 4 4 Jacobs15 Siebert*16 Johnson17 Reinhardt*18 Loffler*19 Kulhanjian*20 GPC and GNR GPC and GNR NA 11 2/10 1/3 5/5 3/5 5/5 4/4 4/7 8/9 5/9 13/16 11/11 5/6 a 12/12 c 7/8 20/34 (59) no no no no no no no no no no *: Comparative trial; GPC: Gram-positive cocci; GNR: Gram-negative rods; ad: adult; ch: children; c: chronic osteomyelitis; a: acute osteomyelitis; iv: intravenous; im: intramuscular; po: oral; Unless otherwise specified, the studies involved adult osteomyelitis. tion of follow-up was explicit in 73 studies, the mean being 16.6 months (range 1—67 months, median 12). In 12 studies, the outcome of acute and chronic cases of osteomyelitis was detailed separately. In eight (67%) of these studies patients with acute osteomyelitis achieved a higher cure rate than patients with chronic osteomyelitis, in three studies outcome was better in patients with chronic osteomyelitis, and in one study the outcome was similar in each type. These differences were not statistically significant in any single study. (Table 2). There were 30 trials investigating cephalosporins, ranging from first generation agents in the late 1970s to fourth generation agents in the 1990s (Table 3). Among glycopeptides, teicoplanin was used in seven studies and vancomycin was administered by continuous infusion in one study33 (Table 4). Fluoroquinolones were used in 16 noncomparative and six comparative trials (Table 5). Finally, the results of trials of miscellaneous antibiotics are reported in Table 6. The pertinent details of all trials are shown in the tables. Studies by type of antibiotic therapy Discussion Three studies were found that used intravenous antistaphylococcal penicillins and six studies with oral antistaphylococcal penicillins (Table 1). Seven trials investigated a beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor, aztreonam was used in six trials, moxalactam and imipenem/cilastatin in one study each Osteomyelitis is a relatively common infection, but a surprisingly small number of comparative trials about its treatment have been published. Moreover, most of the studies involve relatively few patients and are not randomized. The aim of these trials was Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis 131 Table 3 Major findings of the studies using cephalosporins for treating osteomyelitis. Commonest microorganism(s) Severe Duration of Duration of Number adverse treatment follow-up of cured in months patients/total events in weeks (%) Author (ref) Drug(s) Arango46 Fass47 Liu48 Schurman49 Levine50 Bernstein51 Cefazolin im(a) S. aureus or cephapirin im (c) Cefazolin iv S. aureus Cefoxitin iv GPC and GNR Cefoxitin iv GPC and GNR Cefamandole iv S. aureus Cefamandole iv S. aureus 4—7 a 24 c 4 2 2 3 4 13 NA 6 NA 5—23 Levine52 Cefamandole iv S. aureus 4 NA LeFrock53 Nelson54 S. aureus S. aureus 4 3 NA NA 12/12 22/23 (96) Temple55 Biehl56 LeFrock57 Cefamandole iv Cefamandole iv and cefaclor (sequentially) Cefoperazone iv Cefoperazone iv Cefotaxime iv NA S. aureus GPC 4 1 3 NA NA NA Mader58 Cefotaxime iv S. aureus 4 12 Mader59 Cefotaxime iv S. aureus 6 6a 7c 7/9 18/24 6/7 a 25/32 23/25 24/27 21/22 38/46 LeFrock60 Cefotaxime iv GPC 4 12—24 Jacobs61 Mader62 Gomis63 Dutoy64 Cefotaxime iv Ceftizoxime iv Cefotaxime iv Ceftazidime iv GPC GPC and GNR E. coli P. aeruginosa 2 6 4 4 NA 1—12 6 6 Eron65 Bach66 Ceftazidime iv Ceftazidime iv P. aeruginosa P. aeruginosa 6 4 De Bastiani67 Giamarellou68 Yogev69 Pottage70 Routman71 Lucht72 Sheftel73 Jauregui74 Kunkel75 Ceftazidime iv Ceftriaxone iv Ceftriaxone iv Cefsulodin iv Cefsulodin iv Cefsulodin iv Cefmenoxime iv Cefepime iv Cefonicid iv or im GPC and GNR 4 NA 3 GPC and GNR 4 P. aeruginosa 4 P. aeruginosa 24 P. aeruginosa 24 GPC 6 S. aureus, GPC, and GNR 4 S. aureus 6 NA 6a 12 c 12—48 NA 2 12 12 36 12 12 3—13 6 8/20 a (40) 7/10 c 12/13 8/8 6/9 14/16 5/5 a 5/9 c 20/25 a (80) 22/25 c (88) 1 NA separately for osteomyelitis 0 (75) c a c a c (78) (92) (89) (96) (83) 12/12 a 17/20 c (85) 23/24 (96) 13/14 40/50 (80) 7/7 a 11/14 c 4/8 9/11 a 7/15 c 9/10 3/7 6/6 3/8 12/16 11/15 6/15 19/23 (83) 12/12 2 neutropenia at end of treatment 4 1 leukopenia 3 *: Comparative trial; GPC: Gram-positive cocci; GNR: Gram-negative rods; ad: adult; ch: children; c: chronic osteomyelitis; a: acute osteomyelitis; iv: intravenous; im: intramuscular; po: oral; Unless otherwise specified, the studies involved adult osteomyelitis. generally to determine if a ‘new’ drug was at least equivalent to an established treatment, in order to justify using it for treating bone infections. Most of the trials failed to detect statistically significant differences between the two groups, thus providing little understanding about the relative effectiveness of various regimens for treating osteomyelitis. Another limitation of the available literature is that trials involving ‘bone and joint infections’ include a heterogeneous spectrum of diseases, with different 132 L. Lazzarini et al. Table 4 Major findings of the studies using glycopeptides for treating staphylococcal osteomyelitis. Author (ref) Drug(s) Duration of treatment (weeks) Duration of follow-up (months) Number of cured patients/total (%) Severe adverse events Bernard33 Vancomycin, iv continuous infusion Teicoplanin iv Teicoplanin iv Teicoplanin iv Teicoplanin iv 24 14 10/15 no NA NA 6 6 3 12 12 6 6/8 2/7 10/14 3/14 a 8/20 c (40) 18/44 (41) no no no no 76/80 a (95) 62/65 c (95) 72/76 (95) 24 patients de Lalla34 Marone35 Greenberg36 Weinberg37 Graninger38 8 12 LeFrock39 Teicoplanin iv, three times weekly Teicoplanin iv 6 6 Testore40 Teicoplanin im 24 12 no no *: Comparative trial; GPC: Gram-positive cocci; GNR: Gram-negative rods; ad: adult; ch: children; c: chronic osteomyelitis; a: acute osteomyelitis; iv: intravenous; im: intramuscular; po: oral; Unless otherwise specified, the studies involved adult osteomyelitis. prognoses. For example, the cure rate with antibiotics alone of pediatric hematogenous osteomyelitis is much higher than that of a prosthetic joint infection. Thus, in this review only studies that provided separate outcomes for patients with osteomyelitis are included. Moreover, to avoid anecdotal information, trials involving fewer than six patients were excluded. Finally, it has been noted that studies reporting poor outcomes may be less likely to be published, introducing the possibility of publication bias. While an exhaustive literature search was not performed, it is believed that these methods are likely to have revealed the best quality published papers. The similarity of the reported cure rates for the various studies suggests that the results are likely to be accurate and generalizable. Taking into account all the variables in patients with osteomyelitis (e.g., pathogenesis, localization, microbial etiology, surgical treatment) would require analyzing a large number of cases. A recent systematic review of the use of antibiotics for treating bone and joint infection98 included only controlled trials, but did not separate patients with bone versus joint infections. The authors concluded that there is little high quality evidence on the relative effectiveness of various regimens of antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis. Furthermore, by excluding uncontrolled studies, they ignored most of the trials on osteomyelitis. In this literature review, 82% of the published osteomyelitis studies were non-comparative. Thus, to capture all of the available data, both comparative and non-comparative studies have been reviewed. Another problem for studies on osteomyelitis is that of defining the outcome. Virtually every study offered a different definition, using terms such as ‘cure’, ‘improvement’, ‘eradication’, ‘failure’, and ‘recurrence’, each having a different meaning. Using the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on the requirements of human trials on osteomyelitis,99 a common definition was adopted that reflects what can be expected from a course of treatment with antibiotics: a favorable outcome means that the patient is clinically free of disease at the end of the follow-up period. Furthermore, clinical trials should have at least a one-year follow-up period. Unfortunately, many studies did not have this minimum follow-up. Moreover, the duration of follow-up varied markedly, making it difficult to compare data from different studies on the same antibiotic. Another problem is the disease classification schemes used in the studies. About half of the reviewed studies did not use any osteomyelitis classification system. In the others, the most commonly used classification was simply ‘acute’ versus ‘chronic’. Unfortunately, most authors did not provide definitions of acute and chronic osteomyelitis and when given, the threshold between acute and chronic ranged from 20 days to six months. The hallmark of chronic osteomyelitis is the presence of necrosis on bone histology. Since this finding may be present early on during the natural history of the disease, classification into acute versus chronic by duration of disease is inaccurate.100 Although several classifications of osteomyelitis have been advocated,100 none is universally accepted. Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis 133 Table 5 Major findings of the studies using fluoroquinolones for treating osteomyelitis. Severe side effects Commonest microorganism (s) Duration Duration Number of cured of treatment of follow-up patients/ total (%) Non-comparative Trials: Ramirez76 Ciprofloxacin po Scully77 Ciprofloxacin po Slama78 Ciprofloxacin po Gilbert79 Ciprofloxacin po Trexler Hessen80 Ciprofloxacin po Gudiol81 Ciprofloxacin po Lopez82 Ciprofloxacin po Yamaguti83 Ciprofloxacin po Dan84 Ciprofloxacin po Mac Gregor85 Ciprofloxacin po Ketterl86 Ofloxacin po Kannellakopoulou87 Ofloxacin po Eron88 Ofloxacin po Liu89 Fleroxacin po Dellamonica90 Oral fluoroquinolones Greenberg91 Oral fluoroquinolones GPC and GNR P. aeruginosa GNR GNR P. aeruginosa NA NA GPC and GNR P. aeruginosa NA S. aureus GNR GPC and GNR NA S. aureus S. aureus 6 6 11 6—14 9 8 NA 23 12 20 3 24 24 4 24 8 NA NA NA 7—21 10 11 NA 12 27 18 6 6 12 3 36 12 5/8 0 4/6 0 22/30 (73) 0 13/20 (65) 0 22/24 (92) 2 15/20 (75) 0 1/8 13/17 (76) 19/22 (86) 11/18 (61) 1 113/115 (98) 15/20 (75) 6/6 4/7 29/39 (74) 16/27 (59) 3 Comparative Trials Giamarellou*92 NA 25 12 7/8 Author (ref) Drug Pefloxacin iv or po vs ceftazidime iv Gentry*93 Ofloxacin po vs cefazolin Polymicrobial iv or ceftazidime iv 8 18 5/6 14/19 Gomis*94 Ofloxacin po vs Imipenem-cilastatin iv NA 4 6 12/14 7/11 Gentry*95 Ciprofloxacin po vs nafcillin po S. aureus 7 12 7/10 24/31 (77) Mader*96 Ciprofloxacin po vs nafcillin iv + clindamycin po GPC 6 32 22/28 (79) 11/14 Greenberg*97 Ciprofloxacin po vs parenteral treatments Enterobacteriaceae 4 13 10/12 6/14 no 1 Imipenem 11/16 *: Comparative trial; GPC: Gram-positive cocci; GNR: Gram-negative rods; ad: adult; ch: children; c: chronic osteomyelitis; a: acute osteomyelitis; iv: intravenous; im: intramuscular; po: oral; Unless otherwise specified, the studies involved adult osteomyelitis. Some studies were restricted to specific causative organisms, based on the spectrum of the study drug. Most of infections were monomicrobial, but cases of polymicrobial osteomyelitis occurred, especially associated with a diabetic foot infection. Since it is not known if cases of osteomyelitis due to different microbial species have different outcomes, it would probably be more accurate to restrict antibiotic trials to a single microbial species or category. Very few studies specified the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of the isolated organisms, e.g., the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Gram-negative organisms with extended spectrum beta-lactamases. Information about surgical treatment for osteomyelitis, and the presence of surgically implanted bone hardware (and whether or not it was removed) was not provided in most studies. These factors greatly influence the outcome of treatment. Most authorities believe that an incompletely debrided bone infection is prone to treatment failure, no 134 L. Lazzarini et al. Table 6 Major findings of the studies using miscellaneous antibiotics for treating osteomyelitis. Author (ref) Drug(s) Commonest microorganism(s) Duration of treatment (weeks) Duration of follow-up (months) Number of cured patients/ total (%) Severe side effects Beauvais21 Feigin22 Pristinamycin po Clindamycin po S. aureus S. aureus 18 24 Clindamycin po Clindamycin po, vs nafcillin iv Cotrimoxazole po vs oral penicillins Cotrimoxazole po + rifampin po Fosfomycin po Fusidic acid po Fusidic acid po S. aureus S. aureus S. aureus 4—8 12 S. aureus 4 43 25/31 (81) ch 13/19 a 6/6 ch 28/29 (97) ch 11/12 9/13 30/66 (45) 22/45 (49) 21/27 (78) 6 patients no Rodriguez23 Kaplan24 6—12 6a 24 c 10 6 S. aureus S. aureus Coagulase negative staphylococci 3 NA 3 48 NA NA 29/37 (78) 54/72 (75) 19/20 (95) Saengnipanthkul41 Sanchez42 Fernandez43 Hierolzer44 Coombs45 15 12 1 allergy no no 3 no no no *: Comparative trial; GPC: Gram-positive cocci; GNR: Gram-negative rods; ad: adult; ch: children; c: chronic osteomyelitis; a: acute osteomyelitis; iv: intravenous; im: intramuscular; po: oral; Unless otherwise specified, the studies involved adult osteomyelitis. matter what antibiotic therapy has been used.3,100,103 Radical debridement of infected or necrotic bone is even more important in the compromised host.101 Therefore, information is req-uired about any surgical treatment provided in a study about antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis. Duration of antibiotic therapy is also an important issue when treating osteomyelitis. There is little published evidence upon which to determine the most effective duration. In the reviewed papers two major trends were found: most treated the patients for about six weeks, while a minority treated patients for about six months. Data from animal models show that bacteria can be cultured from infected bone even after two weeks of appropriate antibiotic therapy;102 therefore, treatment for four to six weeks has usually been advised.3,103 One retrospective survey of clinical cases supported a shorter duration of treatment;104 there is no published evidence of better results with longer treatment. Outcomes by treatment duration could not be analyzed as prolonged therapy was administered in only seven of 95 studies. Considering the difficulties of conducting a human trial, animal models create more controlled conditions for comparing the efficacy of different antibiotics. Animal trials allow control over the type, duration and severity of disease, any surgical debridement provided, the etiologic agents, and the duration of follow-up. When lacking adequate evidence on drug efficacy, antibiotics for osteomyelitis must often be chosen on the basis of their safety profile. Patient adherence to the treatment, which is better with simplified regimens, must also be considered. Available evidence suggests that oral antibiotic therapy can be as effective as parenteral treatments. The evidence is strongest for fluoroquinolones, because they were used in more recent, wellplanned comparative studies. Oral clindamycin has also compared favorably with parenteral regimens in one trial.24 These favorable results largely derive from the excellent bioavailability and bone penetration of these classes of antibiotics. Oral treatments have the advantage of reduced duration of hospitalization and health care costs. For organisms resistant to oral drugs, outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment (OPAT) has been successfully employed.105 Newer methods of using parenteral therapy are also available. Vancomycin has been administered by continuous infusion and teicoplanin has been administered three times weekly to treat staphylococcal osteomyelitis.33,38 Indeed, the latter approach appears more feasible and deserves consideration in those countries where teicoplanin is available. Cephalosporins were used in many of the osteomyelitis studies and were generally found to be effective. Most of the studies used intravenous cephalosporins, although oral agents, e.g., cephalexin, are often used clinically. Once-daily administered drugs, such as ceftriaxone, are preferred, especially for outpatient therapy.105 As new oral Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis regimens become available, and the prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococci increases, intravenous cephalosporins are likely to become a less widely used treatment of osteomyelitis. New agents with good oral bioavailability, high bone penetration, and activity against MRSA (e.g., linezolid) have great promise,106 but must be tested in clinical trials.107 The published reports on the antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis have not provided information on most key treatment issues. All the antibiotic classes listed in this review have demonstrated efficacy in treating osteomyelitis, but well-designed comparative studies to elucidate the most appropriate regimens are lacking. Therefore, the choice of anti-biotic, unless limited by the sensitivity of the etiologic organism(s), should be based mostly on the safety of various agents for prolonged use, and the cost and practicality of the chosen regimen. Additional, properly designed, studies are needed to ascertain the best agent(s), route, and duration of antibiotic treatment for patients with osteomyelitis. 135 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Acknowledgments Thanks to Mark Shirtliff PhD and Jason H. Calhoun MD for their helpful suggestions, to Kristi Overgaard, BSc for manuscript editing and preparation, and the personnel of the UTMB medical library for their help in retrieving the published literature. Conflict of interest: Benjamin Lipsky has received research sponsorship and has served as a speaker for or a consultant to the following companies: Merck, Pfizer, Wyeth-Ayerst and Ortho-McNeil. Luca Lazzarini has no competing interest to declare. 18. 19. 20. References 21. 1. Florey ME, Florey HW. General and local administration of penicillin. Lancet 1943;1:387—97. 2. Bick EM. Source Book of Orthopaedics. New York: Hafner; 1968. 3. Lazzarini L, de Lalla F, Mader JT. Long bone osteomyelitis. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2002;4:439—45. 4. Rissing JP. Animal models of osteomyelitis: knowledge, hypothesis and speculation. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1990;4:377—90. 5. Norden CW, Fierer J, Bryant R. Chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis: treatment with regimens containing rifampin. Rev Infect Dis 1983;5(suppl 3):S495—501. 6. Norden CW, Bryant R, Palmer D, Montgomerie JZ, Wheat J. Chronic osteomyelitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus: controlled clinical trial of nafcillin therapy and nafcillinrifampin therapy. South Med J 1986;79:947—51. 7. Leder K, Turnidge JD, Korman TM, Lindsay Grayson M. The clinical efficacy of continuous-infusion flucloxacillin in ser- 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. ious staphylococcal sepsis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43:113—8. Bell SM. Oral penicillins in the treatment of chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis. Lancet 1968;10:295—7. Hodgkin UG. Antibiotics in the treatment of chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis. South Med J 1975;68:817—22. Bryson YJ, Connor JD, LeClerc M, Giammona ST. High-dose oral dicloxacillin treatment of acute staphylococcal osteomyelitis in children. J Pediatr 1979;94:673—5. Cole WG, Dalziel RE, Leitz S. Treatment of acute osteomyelitis in childhood. J Bone Joint Surg 1982;64B:218—23. Hubbard MJS, Ndawula AL. A controlled trial of cloxacillin and tetracycline in chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis in Ugandan children. East Afr Med J 1973;50:480—5. Hedstrom SA. Treatment of chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis with cloxacillin and dicloxacillin — a comparative study in 12 patients. Scand J Infect Dis 1975;5:55—7. Gentry LO, Macko V, Lind R, Heilman A. Ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid therapy for osteomyelitis. Am J Med 1985;79(suppl 5B):116—21. Jacobs RF, Augustine RA, Aronson J, McCarthy RE, Steele RW, Yamauchi T. Timentin therapy for bone, joint, and deep soft tissue infection in children. Am J Med 1985;79(suppl 5B):188—91. Siebert WT, Evans Kopp P. Ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid versus moxalactam therapy of osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, and skin and soft tissue infections. Am J Med 1985;79(suppl 5B):141—5. Johnson CC, Reinhardt JF, Wallace SL, Terpenning MS, Helsel CL, Mulligan ME, et al. Safety and efficacy of ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid in the treatment of infections of soft tissue, bone, and joint. Am J Med 1985;79(suppl 5B):136— 40. Reinhardt JF, Johnston L, Ruane P, Johnson CC, IngramDrake L, MacDonald K, et al. A randomized, double blinded comparison of sulbactam/ampicillin and clindamycin for the treatment of aerobic and aerobic/anaerobic infections. Rev Infect Dis 1986;8(suppl 5):S569—75. Loffler L, Bauernfeind A, Keyl W, Hoffstedt B, Piergies A, Lenz W. An open, comparative study of sulbactam plus ampicillin vs. cefotaxime as initial therapy for serious soft tissue and bone and joint infections. Rev Infect Dis 1986;8(suppl 5):S569—75. Kulhanjian J, Dunphy MG, Hamstra S, Levernier K, Rankin M, Petru A, et al. Randomized comparative study of ampicillin/ sulbactam vs. ceftriaxone for treatment of soft tissue and skeletal infections in children. Pediatr Infect Dis 1989;8:605—10. Beauvais P, Filipe G, Berniere J, Carlioz H. Traitement des infections osseuses et articulaires de l’enfant par la pristinamycine. Arch Fr Pediatr 1981;38:489—93. Feigin RD, Pickering LK, Anderson D, Keeney RE, Shackelford PG. Clindamycin treatment of osteomyelitis and septic arthritis in children. Pediatrics 1975;55:213—23. Rodriguez W, Ross S, Khan W, McKay D, Moskowitz P. Clindamycin in the treatment of osteomyelitis in children. Am J Dis Child 1977;131:1088—93. Kaplan SL, Mason EO, Feigin RD. Clindamycin versus nafcillin or methicillin in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis in children. South Med J 1982;75:138—42. Giamarellou H, Galanakis N, Douzinas E, Petrikkos G, El Messidi M, Papoulias G, et al. Evaluation of aztreonam in difficult-to-treat infections with prolonged posttreatment follow-up. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984;26:245—9. Greenberg RN, Reilly PM, Luppen KL, McMillian R, Bollinger M, Wolk SM, et al. Treatment of serious gram-negative infections with aztreonam. J Infect Dis 1984;150:623—30. 136 27. Scully BE, Neu HC. Use of aztreonam in the treatment of serious infections due to multiresistant gram-negative organisms, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Am J Med 1985;78:251—61. 28. Prybil C, Salzer R, Beskin J, Haddad RJ, Pollok B, Beville R, et al. Aztreonam in the treatment of serious orthopedic infections. Am J Med 1985;78(suppl 2A):51—6. 29. Simons WJ, Lee TJ. Aztreonam in the treatment of bone and joint infections caused by gram-negative bacilli. Rev Infect Dis 1985;7(suppl 4):S783—8. 30. Conrad DA, Williams RR, Couchman TL, Lentnek AL. Efficacy of aztreonam in the treatment of skeletal infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(suppl 7): S634—9. 31. Mogabgab WJ, Bauman DC, LaCorte WF, Pollok B, Pauling B, Beville RB., et al. Moxalactam therapy of difficult infections in patients with serious underlying conditions. J Int Med Res 1983;11:269—78. 32. MacGregor RR, Gentry LO. Imipenem/Cilastatin in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Am J Med 1985;78(suppl 6A): 100—3. 33. Bernard E, Perbost I, Carles M, Michiels A, Caresenti-Etesse H, Chichmanian RM, et al. Efficacy and safety of vancomycin constant-rate infusion in the treatment of chronic grampositive bone and joint infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 1997;3:440—6. 34. de Lalla F, Santoro D, Rinaldi E, Suter F, Cruciani M, Guaglianone MH, et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of infections by staphylococci, Clostridium difficile and other gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;23: 131—42. 35. Marone P, Concia E, Andreoni M, Suter F, Cruciani M. Treatment of bone and soft tissue infections with teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25:435—9. 36. Greenberg RN. Treatment of bone, joint and vascularaccess-associated Gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:2392—7. 37. Weinberg WG. Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin for bone and joint infections: result of a community-based trial. South Med J 1993;86:891—7. 38. Graninger W, Prestler E, Wenisch C, Schwameis E, Breyer S, Vulkovich T. Management of serious staphylococcal infections in the outpatient setting. Drugs 1997;54:21—8. 39. LeFrock J, Ristuccia A. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections: an open study. J Infect Chemother 1999;5:32—9. 40. Testore GP, Uccella I, Sarrecchia C, Mattei A, Impagliazzo A, Sordillo P, et al. Long-term intramuscular teicoplanin treatment of chronic osteomyelitis due to oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in outpatients. J Chemother 2000;12: 412—5. 41. Saengnipanthkul S, Pongvivat T, Mahaisavariya B, Laupattarakasem W. Co-trimoxazole in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. J Med Assoc Thai 1988;71:186—91. 42. Sanchez C, Matamala A, Salavert M, Cuchi E, Pons M, Angles F, et al. Cotrimoxazol mas rifampicina en el tratamiento de la infeccion osteoarticular estafilococica. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1997;15:10—3. 43. Fernandez-Valencia JE, Saban T, Canedo T, Olay T. Fosfomycin in osteomyelitis. Chemotherapy 1976;22: 121—34. 44. Hierolzer G, Rehn J, Knothe H, Masterson J. Antibiotic therapy of chronic post-traumatic osteomyelitis. J Bone Joint Surg 1974;56B:721—9. 45. Coombs RRH, Menday AP. Fusidic acid in orthopaedic infections due to coagulase-negative staphylococci. Curr Med Res Opin 1985;9:587—90. L. Lazzarini et al. 46. Arango JL, Trujillo H, Worren D, Uribe A, Agudelo NH, de Vidal EL. Effectiveness of two new cephalosporins, cephazolin and cephapirin, administered intermittently in acute and chronic osteomyelitis in children. J Int Med Res 1976;4: 183—94. 47. Fass RJ. Treatment of osteomyelitis and septic arthritis with cefazolin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978;13: 405—11. 48. Liu C, Hinthorn DR. Osteomyelitis treated with cefoxitin sodium. J Antimicrob Chemother 1978;4:235—7. 49. Schurman DJ, Dillingham M. Clinical evaluation of cefoxitin in the treatment of infections in 47 orthopedic patients. Rev Infect Dis 1979;1:206—9. 50. Levine LR, McCain E. Clinical experience with cefamandole for treatment of serious bone and joint infections. J Infect Dis 1978;137(suppl):S119—24. 51. Bernstein BM, Fass RJ. Treatment of osteomyelitis and septic arthritis with cefamandole. Am J Med Sc 1982; 284:2—8. 52. Levine LR. Cefamandole in the treatment of serious bone and joint diseases. Scand J Infect Dis 1980;25(suppl): 89—93. 53. LeFrock JL, Paparone P, Kowalsky SF, Schell RF, Jacobs RL, Wirth CR, et al. Use of cefamandole in the treatment of soft tissue and skeletal infections. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1981;15:951—7. 54. Nelson JD, Bucholz RW, Kusmiesz H, Shelton S. Benefits and risks of sequential parenteral-oral cephalosporins therapy for suppurative bone and joint infections. J Pediatr Orthop 1982;2:255—62. 55. Temple J, Mogabgab WJ. Cefoperazone therapy for serious infections. Clin Ther 1982;4:450—64. 56. Biehl G. Cefoperazone in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Clin Ther 1983;6:18—21. 57. LeFrock JL, Carr BB. Clinical experience with cefotaxime in the treatment of serious bone and joint infections. Rev Infect Dis 1982;4(suppl):S465—71. 58. Mader JT, LeFrock JL, Hyams KC, Molavi A, Reinarz JA. Cefotaxime therapy for patients with osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. Rev Infect Dis 1982;4(suppl):S472—80. 59. Mader JT, Reinarz JA, LeFrock JL. Cefotaxime treatment in patients with osteomyelitis and septic arthritis: a multicenter study. Clin Ther 1982;5(suppl A):10—8. 60. LeFrock J, Mader J, Smith B, Carr B. Bone and Joint infections caused by gram positive bacteria: treatment with cefotaxime. Infection 1985;13(suppl 1):S50—5. 61. Jacobs RF, Darville T, Parks JA, Enderlin G. Safety profile and efficacy of cefotaxime for the treatment of hospitalized children. Clin Infect Dis 1992;14:56—65. 62. Mader JT, Shannon CR, Cierny G, Reinarz JA. Treatment of acute and chronic osteomyelitis with ceftizoxime. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982;10(suppl C):265—71. 63. Gomis M, Herranz A, Aparicio J, Filloy JL, Pastor J. Cefotaxime in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis caused by gram-negative bacilli. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 (suppl A):45—52. 64. Dutoy JP, Wauters G. The treatment of bone infections with ceftazidime. J Antimicrob Chemother 1983;12(suppl A): 229—33. 65. Eron LJ, Choong HP, Hixon DL, Goldenberg RI, Poretz DM. Ceftazidime in patients with pseudomonas infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1983;12(suppl A):161—9. 66. Bach MC, Cocchetto DM. Ceftazidime as single-agent therapy for gram-negative aerobic bacillary osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987;31:1605—8. 67. De Bastiani G, Nogarin L, Molinaroli F, Bragantini A, Fostini R. Use of ceftazidime in the treatment of osteomyelitis Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. and osteoarthritis. Int J Clin Pharm Ther Toxicol 1986;12: 677—9. Giamarellou HJ, Tsagarakis J, Petrikkos G, Mavroudis K, Veldekis D, Daikos GK. Ceftriaxone: therapeutic results in various infections and kinetic studies. Drug Res 1984;34:321—5. Yogev R, Shulman ST, Chadwick EG, Davis AT, Glogowski W. Once daily ceftriaxone for central nervous system infections and other serious pediatric infections. Pediatr Infect Dis 1986;5:298—303. Pottage JC, Karakusis PH, Trnholme GM. Cefsulodin therapy for osteomyelitis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Rev Infect Dis 1984;6(suppl 3):S728—33. Routman A, Van Manen W, Haddad R, Pollock B, Holmes B, Mogabgab WJ. Cefsulodin treatment for serious Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J Int Med Res 1986;14:242—53. Lucht RF, Fresard A, Berthelot P, Farizon F, Aubert G, Dorche G, et al. Prolonged treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa osteomyelitis with a combination of two effective antibiotics. Infection 1994;22:277—80. Sheftel TG, Cierny G, Lefrock JL, Mader JT. Cefmenoxime therapy in bacterial osteomyelitis. Am J Med 1984;77(suppl 6A):17—20. Jauregui L, Matzke D, Scott M, Minns P, Hageage G. Cefepime as treatment for osteomyelitis and other severebacterial infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32(suppl B):141—9. Kunkel MJ, Iannini PB. Cefonicid in a once-daily regimen for treatment of osteomyelitis in an ambulatory setting. Rev Infect Dis 1984;6(suppl 4):S865—9. Ramirez CA, Bran JL, Mejia CR, Garcia JF. Open, prospective study of the clinical efficacy of ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985;28:128—32. Scully BE, Parry MF, Neu HC, Mandell W. Oral ciprofloxacin therapy of infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Lancet 1986;1:819—22. Slama TG, Misinski J, Sklar S. Oral ciprofloxacin therapy for osteomyelitis caused by aerobic gram negative bacilli. Am J Med 1987;82(suppl 4A):259—61. Gilbert DN, Tice AD, Marsh PK, Craven PC, Preheim LC. Oral ciprofloxacin therapy for chronic contiguous osteomyelitis caused by aerobic gram-negative bacilli. Am J Med 1987;82(suppl 4A):254—8. Trexler Hessen M, Ingerman MJ, Kaufman DH, Weiner P, Weiner P, Santoro J, et al. Clinical efficacy of ciprofloxacin therapy for gram-negative bacillary osteomyelitis. Am J Med 1987;82(suppl 4A):262—5. Gudiol F, Cabellos C, Pallares R, Linares J, Ariza J. Intravenous ciprofloxacin therapy in severe infections. Am J Med 1989;87(suppl 5A):S221—4. Lopez JC, Cercenado E, Rodriguez-Creixems M, Romero J, Garcia de la Torre M, Bouza E. Evaluacion de la ciprofloxacina en el tratamiento de infecciones bacterianas graves. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1989;7:47—52. Yamaguti A, Trevisanello C, Lobo IMF, Carvalho MCS, Bortoletto ML, Silva MLR, et al. Oral ciprofloxacin for treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. Int J Clin Pharm Res 1993;12:75—9. Dan M, Siegman-Igra Y, Pitlik S, Raz R. Oral ciprofloxacin treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:849—52. MacGregor RR, Graziani AL, Esterhai JL. Oral ciprofloxacin for osteomyelitis. Orthopedics 1990;13:55—60. Ketterl R, Beckurts B, Claudi S, Claudi B. Use of ofloxacin in open fractures and in the treatment of post-traumatic osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;22(suppl C): 159—66. 137 87. Kannellakopoulou K, Giamarellou H. Clinical experience with parenteral and oral ofloxacin in severe infections. Scand J Infect Dis 1990;68:64—9. 88. Eron LJ, Gentry LO. Oral ofloxacin for infection caused by bacteria resistant to oral antimicrobial agents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992;15:435—9. 89. Liu YC, Chenh DL, de Garis ST, Lin HH, Hsieh TS, Wang RS, et al. Clinical evaluation of fleroxacin in the treatment of bone and joint infections. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Pub Health 1992;23:514—8. 90. Dellamonica P, Bernard E, Etesse H, Garaffo R, Drugeon HB. Evaluation of pefloxacin, ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of thirty-nine cases of chronic osteomyelitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989;8:1024—30. 91. Greenberg RN, Newman MT, Shariaty S, Pectol RW. Ciprofloxacin, lomefloxacin, or levofloxacin as treatment for chronic osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:164—6. 92. Giamarellou H, Perdikaris G, Galanakis N, Davoulos G, Mandragos K, Sfikakis P. Pefloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of a variety of gram negative bacterial infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33: 1362—7. 93. Gentry LO, Rodriguez-Gomez G. Ofloxacin versus parenteral therapy for chronic osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:538—41. 94. Gomis M, Barberan J, Sanchez B, Khorrami S, Borja J, Garcia-Barbal J. Oral ofloxacin versus parenteral imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Rev Esp Quimioterap 1999;12:244—9. 95. Gentry LO, Rodriguez GG. Oral ciprofloxacin compared with parenteral antibiotics in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:40—3. 96. Mader JT, Cantrell JS, Calhoun J. Oral ciprofloxacin compared with standard parenteral antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72A:104—10. 97. Greenberg RN, Tice AD, Marsh PK, Craven PC, Reilly PM, Bollinger M, et al. Randomized trial of ciprofloxacin compared with other antimicrobial therapy in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Am J Med 1987;82(suppl 4A): 266—9. 98. Stengel D, Bauwens K, Sehouli J, Ekkerkamp A, Porsolt F. Systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic therapy for bone and joint infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2001;1:175— 88. 99. Mader JT, Norden C, Nelson JH, Calandra GB. Evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for the treatment of osteomyelitis in adults. Clin Infect Dis 1992;15(suppl 1):S155—61. 100. Mader JT, Shirtliff M, Calhoun JH. Staging and staging application in osteomyelitis. Clin Infect Dis 1997;25: 1303—9. 101. Simpson AH, Deakin M, Latham JM. Chronic osteomyelitis. The effect of the extent of surgical resection on infection-free survival. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83: 403—7. 102. Norden CW. Lessons learned from animal models of osteomyelitis. Rev Infect Dis 1988;10:103—10. 103. Waldvogel FA. Osteomyelitis. In: Gorbach SL, Bartlett JG, Blacklow NR, editors. Infectious Diseases. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1988. p. 1339—44. 104. Syrogiannopoulos GA, Nelson JD. Duration of antimicrobial therapy for acute suppurative osteoarticular infections. Lancet 1988;1:37—40. 105. Tice A, Hoagland PA, Shoultz PA. Risk factors and treatment outcomes in osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;51:1261—8. 138 106. Lovering AM, Zhang J, Bannister GC, Lankester BJA, Brown JHM, Narenda G, et al. Penetration of linezolid into bone, fat, muscle and haematoma of patients underoing routine hip replacement. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002;50:73—7. L. Lazzarini et al. 107. Rao N, Ziran BH, Santa ER. Treatment of chronic osteomyelitis with linezolid. Abstract 195, Program and Abstracts of the 40th Annual Meeting of IDSA, October 24—27, 2002. Chicago, IL.
© Copyright 2024