APMLE Part I study materials
APMLE Part I study resources

Chronic Diabetic Forefoot Ulcer With a Positive Probe-to-Bone Test

APMLE Part I · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Chronic Diabetic Forefoot Ulcer With a Positive Probe-to-Bone Test

A 58-year-old man with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 9.9%, creatinine 1.8 mg/dL) has a 3-cm ulcer beneath the first metatarsal head of the left foot, present for six weeks. Probe-to-bone is positive. There is mild surrounding erythema but no purulence, fluctuance, or systemic signs; temperature is 37.2°C, WBC 8.2 × 10⁹/L, ESR 82 mm/h, CRP 41 mg/L. Plain radiographs show no erosion, periosteal reaction, or gas. Dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses are palpable and the ABI is 1.25. A previous clinician prescribed cephalexin 500 mg four times daily for 10 days, with no improvement.

1. Interpret the normal WBC, the normal radiograph, and the ABI of 1.25. Which result is the falsely reassuring one, and why?

Read the worked answer
  • Normal WBC is common in chronic osteomyelitis and carries little weight either way. ESR and CRP are the more useful markers, and both are elevated here.
  • Normal radiograph: bone changes require 30–50% loss of mineral content and typically lag 2–3 weeks behind the infection, so early films are often normal. A normal film does not exclude osteomyelitis; it only fails to confirm it.
  • ABI 1.25 is the falsely reassuring value. An ankle-brachial index above roughly 1.3 (and often above 1.2 in long-standing diabetes) suggests medial arterial calcification, which makes the tibial vessels incompressible and artificially elevates cuff pressures. In this patient the ABI says nothing about perfusion of the forefoot.

The correct conclusion: the probability of osteomyelitis is high (chronic ulcer, positive probe-to-bone, elevated inflammatory markers, failure of a prior antibiotic course), and the vascular status is still unknown rather than proven normal. Toe pressures or transcutaneous oximetry are needed.

2. What is the next best diagnostic step before committing to a long antibiotic course, and why not simply start empiric oral therapy or order an MRI?

Read the worked answer

The next step is a bone specimen for culture and histology - obtained through uninfected skin where possible, or by deep curettage through the ulcer after sharp debridement - ideally with the patient off antibiotics for one to two weeks if that can be done safely.

Why not the alternatives:

  • Superficial swabs grow colonizing flora and are unreliable for directing therapy.
  • Empiric long-course antibiotics before a specimen often sterilize the culture plate and select resistant organisms. This patient has no systemic toxicity, so there is time to do it properly; the failed cephalexin course is itself a reason not to guess again.
  • MRI is sensitive but less specific in the presence of Charcot arthropathy, prior surgery, or adjacent soft-tissue infection, and it does not identify an organism. It is most useful for planning the extent of resection once the diagnosis is established, or when a biopsy is not feasible.

The judgement being tested is that in a well-appearing patient, the tissue diagnosis - not the imaging study, and not another empiric prescription - determines the six-week plan.

3. Vascular studies return a toe pressure of 28 mmHg. How does this change the plan?

Read the worked answer
  • A toe pressure below 30 mmHg indicates severely impaired perfusion. This wound will not heal predictably regardless of antibiotic choice or offloading, and the ABI of 1.25 must now be explicitly discarded as a measure of perfusion.
  • The priority shifts to revascularization: formal angiography with a view to distal bypass or angioplasty, coordinated with rather than after surgical debridement. The amputation level, if one is needed, should be planned on perfusion, not solely on the extent of infection.
  • Antibiotics become adjunctive and should be targeted to the bone culture. Offloading with a total contact cast is inappropriate while infection is active but becomes the mainstay of prevention once the wound is treated.
  • The conversation with the patient should now include the possibility of major amputation and limb-salvage options, because the infection and the ischemia are separate problems and both must be addressed.