medigraphic.com
ISSN 2594-1518 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Print)

2026, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Cir Gen 2026; 48 (2)

Wood´s light vs. wound culture in diabetic foot ulcer infections: a diagnostic test study

Veles MFA, Rivera PMÁ, Arenas SD

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 71-78
PDF size: 1262.50 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: diabetes is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. Diabetic foot ulcers and their infection are among the most feared complications, associated with a high risk of amputation. Early diagnosis is essential to prevent this. The current gold standard is wound culture. Among alternative diagnostic methods, Wood's light was studied to determine its sensitivity and specificity for detecting diabetic foot ulcer infection. Objective: to determine the sensitivity and specificity of Wood's light for diagnosing diabetic foot ulcer infection, compared with culture and biopsy. Material and methods: a prospective, analytical, observational, cross-sectional, epidemiological diagnostic test study was conducted. At Regional Hospital No. 1 in Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, patients with diabetic foot ulcers were examined using a Wood's light and wound biopsy for culture. Both methods were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Results: we found that the Wood's light had a sensitivity of 93.8%, specificity of 85.7%, positive predictive value of 97.8%, and negative predictive value of 66%. Conclusions: the Wood's light is an effective method for the diagnosis of wound infection in diabetic foot ulcers.


REFERENCES

  1. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Informe mundial sobre la diabetes [Internet]. Suiza: OMS; [citado 2023 sept 18]. Disponible en: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/254649/9789243565255-spa.pdf?sequence=1

  2. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Diagnóstico y tratamiento farmacológico de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en el primer nivel de atención [Internet]. México: IMSS; 2018 [citado 2023 sept 18]. Disponible en: https://www.imss.gob.mx/sites/all/statics/guiasclinicas/718GER.pdf

  3. Secretaría de Salud. Prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento y rehabilitación del pie diabético [Internet]. México: CENETEC; 2020 [citado 2023 sept 18]. Disponible en: https://www.cenetec-difusion.com/CMGPC/GPC-SS-005-20/ER.pdf

  4. Armstrong DG, Boulton AJU, Bus SA. Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 2367-2375. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1615439.

  5. Jneid J, Lavigne J, La Scola B, Cassir N. The diabetic foot microbiota: a review. Hum Microbiome J [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Sep 18];5-6. Available in: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452231717300076

  6. Serena TE, Harrell K, Serena L, Yaakov RA. Real-time bacterial fluorescence imaging accurately identifies wounds with moderate-to-heavy bacterial burden. J Wound Care. 2019; 28: 346-357. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.6.346.

  7. Rahma S, Woods J, Brown S, Nixon J, Russell D. The use of point-of-care bacterial autofluorescence imaging in the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2022; 45: 1601-1609. doi: 10.2337/dc21-2218.

  8. Ottolino-Perry K, Chamma E, Blackmore KM, Lindvere-Teene L, Starr D, Tapang K, et al. Improved detection of clinically relevant wound bacteria using autofluorescence image-guided sampling in diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 2017; 14: 833-841. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12717.

  9. DaCosta R, Kulbatski I, Lindvere-Teene L, Starr D, Blackmore K, Silver J, et al. Point-of-care autofluorescence imaging for real-time sampling and treatment guidance of bioburden in chronic wounds: first-in-human results. PLoS One [Internet]. 2015 [citado 2024 Jun 16];10:1-23. Available in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366392/pdf/pone.0116623.pdf

  10. Macías-Hernández AE, Álvarez JA, Cabeza de Vaca F, Cuevas A, Ramírez AJ, Ramírez WA, et al. Microbiología del pie diabético: ¿es útil el cultivo tomado con hisopo? Gac Med Mex [Internet]. 2011 [citado 2023 Mar 18]; 147 (2): 117-124. Disponible en: https://www.anmm.org.mx/GMM/2011/n2/26_GMM_Vol_147_-_2_2011.pdf

  11. Segovia-Coronel N, Mereles E, Gottardi-Aguirre G, Marques-Ramos W, Viana C, Pereira A, et al. Infecciones bacterianas en pacientes con pie diabético. Rev Salud Pública Parag [Internet]. 2017 [citado 2023 Mar 18]; 7 (2): 9-13. Disponible en: https://docs.bvsalud.org/biblioref/2018/05/884745/infecciones-bacterianas.pdf

  12. Hurley CM, McClusky P, Sugrue RM, Clover JA, Kelly JE. Efficacy of a bacterial fluorescence imaging device in an outpatient wound care clinic: a pilot study. J Wound Care. 2019; 28: 438-443. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.7.438

  13. Blasco-Morente G, Garrido-Colmenero C, Pérez-López I, Tercedor-Sánchez J. Luz de Wood en dermatología: una técnica imprescindible. Piel. 2014; 29: 487-494. doi: 10.1016/j.piel.2014.03.015.

  14. Rennie MY, Dunham D, Lindvere-Teene L, Raizman R, Hill R, Linden R. Understanding real-time fluorescence signals from bacteria and wound tissues observed with the MolecuLight i:X™. Diagnostics (Basel). 2019; 9: 22. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics9010022. Available in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6468690/pdf/diagnostics-09-00022.pdf

  15. Oropallo A, Andersen C, Abdo R, Hurlow J, Kelso M, Melin M, et al. Guidelines for point-of-care fluorescence imaging for detection of wound bacterial burden based on Delphi consensus. Diagnostics. 2021; 11: 1219. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11071219.

  16. Rennie MY, Lindvere-Teene L, Tapang K, Linden R. Point-of-care fluorescence imaging predicts the presence of pathogenic bacteria in wounds: a clinical study. J Wound Care. 2017; 26: 452-460. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.8.452.

  17. Astudillo-Galarza DM, Lemus-Cosme O, Hernández-del Pino S. Luz de Wood, fluorescencia en infecciones por bacterias y hongos. F Derma Cub. 2020; 14.

  18. Duffau G. Tamaño muestral en estudios sobre pruebas diagnósticas. Rev Chil Pediatr. 1998; 69: 122-125. doi: 10.4067/S0370-41061998000300008.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com