Preview

Variant: 1 Adult. Suspected osteomyelitis of the foot in patients with diabetes mellitus. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Radiography foot	Usually Appropriate
US foot	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI foot without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT foot with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT foot without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan with SPECT or SPECT/CT foot	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate
WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
WBC scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 2 Adult. Suspected osteomyelitis of the foot in patients with diabetes mellitus. Initial radiographs negative or indeterminate for osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI foot without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
CT foot with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
CT foot without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
3-phase bone scan foot	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)
FDG-PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate
US foot	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided biopsy foot	Usually Not Appropriate
CT foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan with SPECT or SPECT/CT foot	Usually Not Appropriate
WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
WBC scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 3 Adult. Radiographs positive for osteomyelitis of the foot in patients with diabetes mellitus. Next imaging study for pretreatment planning.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI foot without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
Image-guided biopsy foot	May Be Appropriate
CT foot with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
CT foot without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan with SPECT or SPECT/CT foot	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)
WBC scan foot	May Be Appropriate
US foot	Usually Not Appropriate
CT foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate
WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 4 Adult. Suspected osteomyelitis of the foot in patients with diabetes mellitus and metal instrumentation in the foot. Initial radiographs negative or indeterminate for osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI foot without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan with SPECT or SPECT/CT foot	Usually Appropriate
CT foot with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
CT foot without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	May Be Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan foot	May Be Appropriate
WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	May Be Appropriate
US foot	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided biopsy foot	Usually Not Appropriate
CT foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate
WBC scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 5 Adult. Radiographs positive for osteomyelitis of the foot in patients with diabetes mellitus and metal instrumentation in the foot. Next imaging study for pretreatment planning.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI foot without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
Image-guided biopsy foot	May Be Appropriate
CT foot with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
CT foot without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	May Be Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan foot	May Be Appropriate
3-phase bone scan and WBC scan with SPECT or SPECT/CT foot	May Be Appropriate
WBC scan and sulfur colloid scan foot	May Be Appropriate
US foot	Usually Not Appropriate
CT foot without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
3-phase bone scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate
WBC scan foot	Usually Not Appropriate

Jonathan C. Baker, MD^a; Benjamin E. Northrup, MD^b; Shivani Ahlawat, MD^c; Hailey Allen, MD^d; Geneve Allison, MD^e; James Banks, MD^f; Matthew P. Borloz, MD^g; Murthy R. Chamarthy, MD^h; Hillary W. Garner, MDⁱ; Christopher Edward Gross, MD^j; Jinel A. Scott, MD, MBA^k; Timothy Switaj, MD^l; Jennifer Zreloff, MD^m; Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhDⁿ.

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please visit https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

1. [-3198162] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services; 2021. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/php/data-research/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html.
2. [28497161] Duryea D, Bernard S, Flemming D, Walker E, French C. Outcomes in diabetic foot ulcer patients with isolated T2 marrow signal abnormality in the underlying bone: should the diagnosis of "osteitis" be changed to "early osteomyelitis"?. Skeletal Radiol. 46(10):1327-1333, 2017 Oct.
3. [34593597] Palestro C, Clark A, Grady E, et al. Appropriate Use Criteria for the Use of Nuclear Medicine in Musculoskeletal Infection Imaging. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2021 Sep 30.
4. [18285592] Butalia S, Palda VA, Sargeant RJ, Detsky AS, Mourad O. Does this patient with diabetes have osteomyelitis of the lower extremity? JAMA. 2008; 299(7):806-813.
5. [25734130] Markanday A.. Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis: narrative review and a suggested 2-step score-based diagnostic pathway for clinicians. [Review]. Open forum infect. dis.. 1(2):ofu060, 2014 Sep.
6. [18611152] Dinh MT, Abad CL, Safdar N. Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 47(4):519-527.
7. [37779323] Senneville E, Albalawi Z, van Asten SA, et al. IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023). [Review]. Diabetes/Metabolism Research Reviews. e3687, 2023 Oct 01.
8. [23653368] Malone M, Bowling FL, Gannass A, Jude EB, Boulton AJ. Deep wound cultures correlate well with bone biopsy culture in diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 29(7):546-50, 2013 Oct.
9. [36436971] Pierce JL, Perry MT, Wessell DE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Osteomyelitis, Septic Arthritis, or Soft Tissue Infection (Excluding Spine and Diabetic Foot): 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19:S473-S87.
10. [33153552] Tafur M, Bencardino JT, Roberts CC, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Foot Pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S391-S402.
11. [29724425] Chang EY, Tadros AS, Amini B, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Ankle Pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S26-S38.
12. [32370964] Gorbachova T, Chang EY, Ha AS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Trauma to the Foot. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S2-S11.
13. [33153549] Smith SE, Chang EY, Ha AS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Trauma to the Ankle. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S355-S66.
14. [36820925] Mens MA, de Geus A, Wellenberg RHH, et al. Preliminary evaluation of dual-energy CT to quantitatively assess bone marrow edema in patients with diabetic foot ulcers and suspected osteomyelitis. Eur Radiol. 33(8):5645-5652, 2023 Aug.
15. [31322932] Heidari N, Oh I, Li Y, et al. What Is the Best Method to Differentiate Acute Charcot Foot From Acute Infection?. Foot & Ankle International. 40(1_suppl):39S-42S, 2019 Jul.
16. [32862106] Llewellyn A, Kraft J, Holton C, Harden M, Simmonds M. Imaging for detection of osteomyelitis in people with diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology. 131:109215, 2020 Oct.
17. [28366223] Simpfendorfer CS.. Radiologic Approach to Musculoskeletal Infections. [Review]. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 31(2):299-324, 2017 06.
18. [21636263] Harmer JL, Pickard J, Stinchcombe SJ. The role of diagnostic imaging in the evaluation of suspected osteomyelitis in the foot: a critical review. [Review]. FOOT. 21(3):149-53, 2011 Sep.
19. [20567730] Pineda C, Espinosa R, Pena A. Radiographic imaging in osteomyelitis: the role of plain radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and scintigraphy. Seminars in plastic surgery 2009;23:80-9.
20. [9476948] Palestro CJ, Mehta HH, Patel M, et al. Marrow versus infection in the Charcot joint: indium-111 leukocyte and technetium-99m sulfur colloid scintigraphy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 39(2):346-50, 1998 Feb.
21. [26706230] Trevail C, Ravindranath-Reddy P, Sulkin T, Bartlett G. An evaluation of the role of nuclear medicine imaging in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infections of the hip. Clin Radiol. 71(3):211-9, 2016 Mar.
22. [20851003] Heiba SI, Kolker D, Mocherla B, et al. The optimized evaluation of diabetic foot infection by dual isotope SPECT/CT imaging protocol. J Foot Ankle Surg. 49(6):529-36, 2010 Nov-Dec.
23. [27390160] Palestro CJ.. Radionuclide Imaging of Musculoskeletal Infection: A Review. [Review]. J Nucl Med. 57(9):1406-12, 2016 09.
24. [1572113] Palestro CJ, Roumanas P, Swyer AJ, Kim CK, Goldsmith SJ. Diagnosis of musculoskeletal infection using combined In-111 labeled leukocyte and Tc-99m SC marrow imaging. Clin Nucl Med 1992;17:269-73.
25. [3171695] Schauwecker DS, Park HM, Burt RW, Mock BH, Wellman HN. Combined bone scintigraphy and indium-111 leukocyte scans in neuropathic foot disease. J Nucl Med. 29(10):1651-5, 1988 Oct.
26. [2341891] Seabold JE, Flickinger FW, Kao SC, et al. Indium-111-leukocyte/technetium-99m-MDP bone and magnetic resonance imaging: difficulty of diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with neuropathic osteoarthropathy. J Nucl Med. 31(5):549-56, 1990 May.
27. [9473260] Devillers A, Moisan A, Hennion F, Garin E, Poirier JY, Bourguet P. Contribution of technetium-99m hexamethylpropylene amine oxime labelled leucocyte scintigraphy to the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. Eur J Nucl Med. 25(2):132-8, 1998 Feb.
28. [8821280] Johnson JE, Kennedy EJ, Shereff MJ, Patel NC, Collier BD. Prospective study of bone, indium-111-labeled white blood cell, and gallium-67 scanning for the evaluation of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Foot Ankle Int 1996;17:10-6.
29. [16264122] Termaat MF, Raijmakers PG, Scholten HJ, Bakker FC, Patka P, Haarman HJ. The accuracy of diagnostic imaging for the assessment of chronic osteomyelitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(11):2464-2471.
30. [17138732] Filippi L, Schillaci O. Usefulness of hybrid SPECT/CT in 99mTc-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte scintigraphy for bone and joint infections. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(12):1908-1913.
31. [14523585] Horger M, Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg C, et al. The value of SPET/CT in chronic osteomyelitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(12):1665-1673.
32. [17146681] Horger M, Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg C, et al. Added value of SPECT/CT in patients suspected of having bone infection: preliminary results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(3):211-221.
33. [27560470] La Fontaine J, Bhavan K, Lam K, et al. Comparison Between Tc-99m WBC SPECT/CT and MRI for the Diagnosis of Biopsy-proven Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis. WOUNDS. 28(8):271-8, 2016 Aug.
34. [1872240] Larcos G, Brown ML, Sutton RT. Diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients: value of 111In-leukocyte scintigraphy. AJR 1991;157:527-31.
35. [1727365] Schauwecker DS. The scintigraphic diagnosis of osteomyelitis. AJR 1992;158:9-18.
36. [2646871] Yuh WT, Corson JD, Baraniewski HM, et al. Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients: evaluation with plain film, 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, and MR imaging. AJR 1989;152:795-800.
37. [10395336] Jay PR, Michelson JD, Mizel MS, Magid D, Le T. Efficacy of three-phase bone scans in evaluating diabetic foot ulcers. Foot Ankle Int. 1999; 20(6):347-355.
38. [29058098] Mandell JC, Khurana B, Smith JT, Czuczman GJ, Ghazikhanian V, Smith SE. Osteomyelitis of the lower extremity: pathophysiology, imaging, and classification, with an emphasis on diabetic foot infection. [Review]. EMERG. RADIOL.. 25(2):175-188, 2018 Apr.
39. [24764120] Chantelau EA, Grutzner G. Is the Eichenholtz classification still valid for the diabetic Charcot foot?. [Review]. Swiss Med Wkly. 144:w13948, 2014.
40. [27587513] Trieb K.. The Charcot foot: pathophysiology, diagnosis and classification. [Review]. Bone Joint J. 98-B(9):1155-9, 2016 Sep.
41. [18025514] Fayad LM, Carrino JA, Fishman EK. Musculoskeletal infection: role of CT in the emergency department. Radiographics. 2007;27(6):1723-1736.
42. [22801731] Kagna O, Srour S, Melamed E, Militianu D, Keidar Z. FDG PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 39(10):1545-50, 2012 Oct.
43. [15750157] Keidar Z, Militianu D, Melamed E, Bar-Shalom R, Israel O. The diabetic foot: initial experience with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 46(3):444-9, 2005 Mar.
44. [28733376] Lauri C, Tamminga M, Glaudemans AWJM, et al. Detection of Osteomyelitis in the Diabetic Foot by Imaging Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing MRI, White Blood Cell Scintigraphy, and FDG-PET. [Review]. Diabetes Care. 40(8):1111-1120, 2017 08.
45. [23906976] Treglia G, Sadeghi R, Annunziata S, et al. Diagnostic performance of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis related to diabetic foot: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. [Review]. FOOT. 23(4):140-8, 2013 Dec.
46. [32486304] Lauri C, Glaudemans AWJM, Campagna G, et al. Comparison of White Blood Cell Scintigraphy, FDG PET/CT and MRI in Suspected Diabetic Foot Infection: Results of a Large Retrospective Multicenter Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 9(6), 2020 May 30.
47. [36905125] Al-Balas H, Metwalli ZA, Nagaraj A, Sada DM. Is fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous bone biopsy of diabetic foot with suspected osteomyelitis worthwhile? A retrospective study. Journal Of Diabetes. 15(4):332-337, 2023 Apr.
48. [31322951] Heidari N, Kwok I, Vris A, Charalambous A. Should Treatment of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis Be Based on Bone Biopsies?. Foot & Ankle International. 40(1_suppl):73S-74S, 2019 Jul.
49. [30778640] Said N, Chalian M, Fox MG, Nacey NC. Percutaneous image-guided bone biopsy of osteomyelitis in the foot and pelvis has a low impact on guiding antibiotics management: a retrospective analysis of 60 bone biopsies. Skeletal Radiology. 48(9):1385-1391, 2019 Sep.
50. [33134407] Schechter MC, Ali MK, Risk BB, et al. Percutaneous Bone Biopsy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 7(10):ofaa393, 2020 Oct.
51. [33739950] Tardaguila-Garcia A, Sanz-Corbalan I, Garcia-Morales E, Garcia-Alvarez Y, Molines-Barroso RJ, Lazaro-Martinez JL. Diagnostic Accuracy of Bone Culture Versus Biopsy in Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis. Advances in Skin & Wound Care. 34(4):204-208, 2021 Apr 01.
52. [15863990] Al-Khawari HA, Al-Saeed OM, Jumaa TH, Chishti F. Evaluating diabetic foot infection with magnetic resonance imaging: Kuwait experience. Med Princ Pract. 2005; 14(3):165-172.
53. [18956147] Rozzanigo U, Tagliani A, Vittorini E, Pacchioni R, Brivio LR, Caudana R. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of diabetic foot with suspected osteomyelitis. Radiol Med (Torino). 114(1):121-32, 2009 Feb.
54. [32130445] Sax AJ, Halpern EJ, Zoga AC, Roedl JB, Belair JA, Morrison WB. Predicting osteomyelitis in patients whose initial MRI demonstrated bone marrow edema without corresponding T1 signal marrow replacement. Skeletal Radiology. 49(8):1239-1247, 2020 Aug.
55. [17242312] Kapoor A, Page S, Lavalley M, Gale DR, Felson DT. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing foot osteomyelitis: a meta-analysis. [Review] [38 refs]. Arch Intern Med. 167(2):125-32, 2007 Jan 22.
56. [9169715] Craig JG, Amin MB, Wu K, et al. Osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot: MR imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 203(3):849-55, 1997 Jun.
57. [16037509] Collins MS, Schaar MM, Wenger DE, Mandrekar JN. T1-weighted MRI characteristics of pedal osteomyelitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 185(2):386-93, 2005 Aug.
58. [34145466] Alaia EF, Chhabra A, Simpfendorfer CS, et al. MRI nomenclature for musculoskeletal infection. [Review]. Skeletal Radiol. 50(12):2319-2347, 2021 Dec.
59. [19098186] Johnson PW, Collins MS, Wenger DE. Diagnostic utility of T1-weighted MRI characteristics in evaluation of osteomyelitis of the foot. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 192(1):96-100, 2009 Jan.
60. [37123500] Tiegs-Heiden CA, Anderson TC, Collins MS, Johnson MP, Osmon DR, Wenger DE. Outcomes in patients with clinically suspected pedal osteomyelitis based on bone marrow signal pattern on MRI. Journal Of Bone And Joint Infection. 8(2):99-107, 2023.
61. [18036160] Schwegler B, Stumpe KD, Weishaupt D, et al. Unsuspected osteomyelitis is frequent in persistent diabetic foot ulcer and better diagnosed by MRI than by 18F-FDG PET or 99mTc-MOAB. J Intern Med. 2008; 263(1):99-106.
62. [10421237] Vesco L, Boulahdour H, Hamissa S, et al. The value of combined radionuclide and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and conservative management of minimal or localized osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients. Metabolism. 1999; 48(7):922-927.
63. [8518119] Horowitz JD, Durham JR, Nease DB, Lukens ML, Wright JG, Smead WL. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of acute diabetic foot infections. Ann Vasc Surg. 1993; 7(1):44-50.
64. [31463805] Kotecha HM, Lo HS, Vedantham S, Shin H, Cerniglia CA. Abbreviated MRI of the foot in patients with suspected osteomyelitis. Emergency Radiology. 27(1):9-16, 2020 Feb.
65. [37950713] Lopez-Moral M, Garcia-Madrid M, Molines-Barroso RJ, Garcia-Alvarez Y, Alvaro-Afonso FJ, Lazaro-Martinez JL. Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis. Advances in Wound Care. 2023 Dec 20.
66. [17127204] Palestro CJ, Love C, Miller TT. Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: Imaging of musculoskeletal infections. [Review] [95 refs]. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 20(6):1197-218, 2006 Dec.
67. [3157204] Al-Sheikh W, Sfakianakis GN, Mnaymneh W, et al. Subacute and chronic bone infections: diagnosis using In-111, Ga-67 and Tc-99m MDP bone scintigraphy, and radiography. Radiology 1985;155:501-6.
68. [16702459] Palestro CJ, Love C, Tronco GG, Tomas MB, Rini JN. Combined labeled leukocyte and technetium 99m sulfur colloid bone marrow imaging for diagnosing musculoskeletal infection. Radiographics. 2006;26:859-70.
69. [38649465] Park SB, Lim CH, Chun DI, Kim YJ, Kim TH, Park JM. The usefulness of quantitative (99m)Tc-HMPAO WBC SPECT/CT for predicting lower extremity amputation in diabetic foot infection. Sci Rep 2024;14:9260.
70. [30136224] Cohen M, Cerniglia B, Gorbachova T, Horrow J. Added value of MRI to X-ray in guiding the extent of surgical resection in diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis: a review of pathologically proven, surgically treated cases. Skeletal Radiology. 48(3):405-411, 2019 Mar.
71. [11756124] Ledermann HP, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB. Nonenhancing tissue on MR imaging of pedal infection: characterization of necrotic tissue and associated limitations for diagnosis of osteomyelitis and abscess. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jan;178(1):215-22.
72. [15680102] Hopfner S, Krolak C, Kessler S, et al. Preoperative imaging of Charcot neuroarthropathy in diabetic patients: comparison of ring PET, hybrid PET, and magnetic resonance imaging. Foot Ankle Int. 25(12):890-5, 2004 Dec.
73. [12766596] Chacko TK, Zhuang H, Nakhoda KZ, Moussavian B, Alavi A. Applications of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of infection. Nucl Med Commun. 2003;24(6):615-624.
74. [14990668] Crymes WB, Jr., Demos H, Gordon L. Detection of musculoskeletal infection with 18F-FDG PET: review of the current literature. J Nucl Med Technol. 2004;32(1):12-15.
75. [21934545] Wang GL, Zhao K, Liu ZF, Dong MJ, Yang SY. A meta-analysis of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography versus scintigraphy in the evaluation of suspected osteomyelitis. Nucl Med Commun. 32(12):1134-42, 2011 Dec.
76. [32040604] Porrino J, Wang A, Moats A, Mulcahy H, Kani K. Prosthetic joint infections: diagnosis, management, and complications of the two-stage replacement arthroplasty. Skeletal radiology 2020;49:847-59.
77. [30660474] Park BN, Hong SJ, Yoon MA, Oh JK. MRI Diagnosis for Post-Traumatic Osteomyelitis of Extremities Using Conventional Metal-Artifact Reducing Protocols: Revisited. Acad Radiol. 26(11):e317-e323, 2019 11.
78. [35286054] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
79. [-3128692] American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination

Suspected Osteomyelitis of the Foot in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus