The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery

The Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient from Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Differentiating Osteomyelitis and Reactive Bone Marrow Edema in Diabetic Patients

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors
Seyedeh Hanie Afzalabadi 1
Farrokh Seilanian Toosi 1
Ghasem Zamani 2
Alireza Mousavian 2
Amir Mahmoud Ahmadzadeh 1
Behzad Aminzadeh 1
1 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2 Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
10.22038/abjs.2025.70340.3300
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in distinguishing osteomyelitis from reactive bone marrow edema (RBME).
Methods: This cross-sectional study included three groups of consecutive patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) presenting with osteomyelitis, RBME, or healthy bone. All patients had DFU and were referred for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients with a history of foot surgery or biopsy before MRI, those who received antibiotic therapy for three or more days before imaging, and those with contraindications to MRI were excluded from the study. Osteomyelitis was confirmed by tissue biopsy, whereas RBME was diagnosed by exclusion. All participants underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and ADC values were measured independently by two radiologists who were blinded to the clinical diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of ADC was then assessed.
Results: A total of 45 patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) were recruited, of whom 18 (40.0%) had osteomyelitis, 16 (35.6%) had reactive bone marrow edema (RBME), and 11 (24.4%) had healthy bone tissue. Osteomyelitis demonstrated significantly higher ADC values compared to normal bone (P < 0.001) and significantly lower ADC values compared to RBME (P < 0.001). Using a cut-off value of 1478.0 × 10⁻⁶ mm²/s, ADC differentiated osteomyelitis from RBME with an accuracy of 88.2%, sensitivity of 94.4%, specificity of 81.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.958.
Conclusion: These findings support the applicability of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) as a non-invasive and accurate diagnostic tool for differentiating osteomyelitis from reactive bone marrow edema.
        Level of evidence: IV
Keywords
Diabetes mellitus
Magnetic resonance imaging
Osteomyelitis
Reactive bone marrow edema
Subjects
  1. Desai S, Wadhwa V, Thakur U, Chhabra A. Role of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in diabetic foot and ankle disease. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2021;39(03):31325-36.
  2. Peng B, Min R, Liao Y, Yu A. Development of predictive nomograms for clinical use to quantify the risk of amputation in patients with diabetic foot ulcer. J Diabetes Res. 2021:2021:6621035. doi: 10.1155/2021/6621035.
  3. La Fontaine J, Lavery L, Jude E. Current concepts of Charcot foot in diabetic patients. Foot (Edinb). 2016:26:7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2015.11.001.
  4. Senneville EM, Lipsky BA, van Asten SA, Peters EJ. Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev.2020:36 Suppl 1:e3250. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3250.
  5. Patil SS. Ambiguity of Primary Patellar Tuberculous Osteomyelitis as a Pre-Patellar Bursitis: A Case Report. Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2024;12(6):444.
  6. Poursalehian M, Hajiaghajani S, Sabaghian A, Hoveidaei AH, Conway JD. Outcomes and Complications of Arthroscopic Treatment for Septic Arthritis of the Hip: A Systematic Review. Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2025;13(2):62.
  7. Lim W, Barras CD, Zadow S. Radiologic mimics of osteomyelitis and septic arthritis: A pictorial essay. Radiol Res Pract. 2021:2021:9912257. doi: 10.1155/2021/9912257.
  8. Raj S, Prakash M, Rastogi A, Sinha A, Sandhu MS. The role of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a preliminary report. Pol J Radiol. 2022:87:e274-e280. doi: 10.5114/pjr.2022.116637.

 

  1. 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 Radiol. 2020;49(8):1239-1247. doi: 10.1007/s00256-020-03396-x.
  2. Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Subhawong TK, Fayad LM. Differentiation of benign and malignant skeletal lesions with quantitative diffusion weighted MRI at 3T. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(6):1091-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.02.019.
  3. Lim HK, Jee W-H, Jung J-Y, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumours at 3 T. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1082):20170636. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170636.
  4. Stejskal EO, Tanner JE. Spin diffusion measurements: spin echoes in the presence of a time‐dependent field gradient. The journal of chemical physics. 1965;42(1):288-92.
  5. Bergeest JP, Jäger F. A comparison of five methods for signal intensity standardization in MRI. InBildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2008: Algorithmen—Systeme—Anwendungen Proceedings des Workshops vom 6. bis 8. 2008 in Berlin 2008 (pp. 36-40). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  6. Michoux NF, Ceranka JW, Vandemeulebroucke J, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(7):4514-4527. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07522-0.
  7. Lavdas I, Miquel ME, McRobbie DW, Aboagye EO. Comparison between diffusion‐weighted MRI (DW‐MRI) at 1.5 and 3 tesla: A phantom study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(3):682-90. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24397.
  8. Razek AAKA, Samir S. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation of diabetic osteoarthropathy and osteomyelitis in diabetic foot. Eur J Radiol. 2017:89:221-225. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.015.
  9. Eren MA, Karakaş E, Torun AN, Sabuncu T. The clinical value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in diabetic foot infection. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2019;109(4):277-281. doi: 10.7547/17-066.
  10. Ertugrul M, Baktiroglu S, Salman S, et al. The diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes: microbiological examination vs. magnetic resonance imaging and labelled leucocyte scanning. Diabet Med. 2006;23(6):649-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01887.x.
  11. 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. 2009;114(1):121-32. doi: 10.1007/s11547-008-0337-7.
  12. Jang Y-h, Park S, Park YU, Kwack K-S, Jeon SW, Lee HY. Multivariate analyses of MRI findings for predicting osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients. Acta Radiol. 2020 Sep;61(9):1205-1212. doi: 10.1177/0284185119897351.
  13. Peterson N, Widnall J, Evans P, Jackson G, Platt S. Diagnostic imaging of diabetic foot disorders. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38(1):86-95. doi: 10.1177/1071100716672660.
  14. La Fontaine J, Bhavan K, Jupiter D, Lavery LA, Chhabra A. Magnetic resonance imaging of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: imaging accuracy in biopsy-proven disease. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;60(1):17-20. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.02.012.
  15. Kruk KA, Dietrich TJ, Wildermuth S, et al. Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging Distinguishes Between Osteomyelitis, Bone Marrow Edema, and Healthy Bone on Forefoot Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022;56(5):1571-1579. doi: 10.1002/jmri.28091.
  16. Lauri C, Tamminga M, Glaudemans AW, 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. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(8):1111-1120. doi: 10.2337/dc17-0532.
  17. 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. Foot (Edinb). 2013;23(4):140-8. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2013.07.002.
  18. 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):519-27. doi: 10.1086/590011.
  19. Padhani AR, van Ree K, Collins DJ, D’Sa S, Makris A. Assessing the relation between bone marrow signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):163-70. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.8185.
  20. Martín Noguerol T, Luna Alcalá A, Beltrán LS, Gómez Cabrera M, Broncano Cabrero J, Vilanova JC. Advanced MR imaging techniques for differentiation of neuropathic arthropathy and osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Radiographics. 2017;37(4):1161-1180. doi: 10.1148/rg.2017160101.
  21. Dietrich O, Biffar A, Reiser MF, Baur-Melnyk A. Diffusion-weighted imaging of bone marrow. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2009;13(2):134-44. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1220884.
  22. Kumar Y, Khaleel M, Boothe E, Awdeh H, Wadhwa V, Chhabra A. Role of diffusion weighted imaging in musculoskeletal infections: current perspectives. Eur Radiol. 2017 Jan;27(1):414-423. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4372-9.
  23. Diez AIG, Fuster D, Morata L, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with 18F-FDG PET/CT to differentiate osteomyelitis from Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy in diabetic foot. Eur J Radiol. 2020:132:109299. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109299.

 

 

 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 13, Issue 11
November 2025
Pages 750-756

  • Receive Date 13 August 2024
  • Revise Date 24 February 2025
  • Accept Date 13 April 2025