Comparison of Tc-99m Methylene Diphosphonate, Tc-99m Human Immune Globulin, and Tc-99m–Labeled White Blood Cell Scintigraphy in the Diabetic Foot

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1016-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seher N. Ünal ◽  
Hulya Birinci ◽  
Selçuk Baktiroğlu ◽  
Sema Cantez
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Lauri ◽  
Andor W.J.M. Glaudemans ◽  
Giuseppe Campagna ◽  
Zohar Keidar ◽  
Marina Muchnik Kurash ◽  
...  

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) represent one of the most frequent and disabling morbidities of longstanding diabetes; therefore, early diagnosis is mandatory. The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of white blood cell scintigraphy (WBC), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18F) FDG PET/CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in patients with suspected DFI. Images and clinical data from 251 patients enrolled by five centers were collected in order to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of WBC, FDG, and MRI in diagnosing osteomyelitis (OM), soft-tissue infection (STI), and Charcot osteoarthropathy. In OM, WBC acquired following the European Society of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines was more specific and accurate than MRI (91.9% vs. 70.7%, p < 0.0001 and 86.2% vs. 67.1%, p = 0.003, respectively). In STI, both FDG and WBC achieved a significantly higher specificity than MRI (97.9% and 95.7% vs. 83.6%, p = 0.04 and p = 0.018, respectively). In Charcot, both MRI and WBC demonstrated a significantly higher specificity and accuracy than FDG (88.2% and 89.3% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.0009; 80.3% and 87.9% vs. 62.1%, p < 0.02, respectively). Moreover, in Charcot, WBC was more specific than MRI (89.3% vs. 88.2% p < 0.0001). Given the limitations of a retrospective study, WBC using EANM guidelines was shown to be the most reliable imaging modality to differentiate between OM, STI, and Charcot in patients with suspected DFI.


Diabetes Care ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 1111-1120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Lauri ◽  
Menno Tamminga ◽  
Andor W.J.M. Glaudemans ◽  
Luis Eduardo Juárez Orozco ◽  
Paola A. Erba ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 1270-1276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Lauri ◽  
Andor W.J.M. Glaudemans ◽  
Alberto Signore

Background: Diagnosing diabetic foot infection is often difficult, despite several available diagnostic methods. Amongst these, several imaging modalities exist to evaluate the diabetic foot in case of a suspected osteomyelitis. Nuclear Medicine, in particular, offers a variety of radiopharmaceuticals and techniques. Nowadays the gold standard radionuclide procedure, when an osteomyelitis is suspected, is represented by the use of radiolabelled leukocytes with either 99mTc-HMPAO or 111In-oxine. Methods: : In this review, we describe the correct acquisition and interpretation of white blood cell scintigraphy and we provide an overview of the existing literature data of the use of this technique in the infected diabetic foot. If images are correctly acquired, displayed and interpreted, this modality reaches very high diagnostic accuracy (>95%) in detecting osteomyelitis and it allows the differential diagnosis with a soft tissue infection or inflammation. Single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) in addition to planar images is mandatory to determine the extent and exact location of the infective process in both fore foot and midhint foot. With the addition of bone marrow scintigraphy using radiolabelled nanocolloids, radiolabelled white blood cell scintigraphy is also able to differentiate between Charcot neuroarthropathy and osteomyelitis, which is a challenge in the evaluation of diabetic foot. Radiolabelled anti-granulocyte monoclonal antibodies and their fragments can also be used instead of white blood cells although there is a limited experience on their usefulness in diabetic foot infection.


2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 575-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taner Çolak ◽  
Fırat Güngör ◽  
Şule Özuğur ◽  
Hayri Bozan ◽  
Akın Yıldız ◽  
...  

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Maria Mello ◽  
Louis Blake ◽  
I. Ross McDougall

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document