Introduction: India has the largest diabetic population of 50.8 million that could reach an epidemic proportion by 2030. Diabetic foot infection is one of the dreaded complications of diabetes. Only a few studies that focus on patterns of diabetic foot infection in our region, where diabetic foot care is inadequate, are available. This study evaluated microbial and clinical characteristics of diabetic foot infections that will be helpful in taking appropriate measures for their management. Methodology: In this prospective study conducted during 2008-2009, sixty-two diabetic foot patients underwent detailed history, clinical examination, and laboratory investigations including parameters of systemic infections. Microbial culture and sensitivity were performed at the time of presentation. Results: Among 62 cases, 43.5% had mono-microbial infection, 35.5% had poly-microbial infections, and 21% had sterile culture. Among 82 bacteria isolated, 68% were Gram negative and 32% were Gram positive. Leukocyte counts were higher (16928±9642 versus 14593±6687 cells/mm 3 ) and haemoglobin (7.9±2.4 versus 9.2±2.2 mg/dl) lower in poly-microbial compared to mono-microbial infections. Haemoglobin counts were lower and leukocyte counts higher in Gram-negative compared to Gram-positive infections. Patients with sterile cultures also had clinical evidence of persistent infection. Escherichia coli were the most common isolate and piperacillin/tazobactam showed highest sensitivity. Conclusions: Gram-negative bacteria were most prevalent in diabetic foot infection. It is not uncommon to have culture reports negative despite clinical evidence of infection. This study suggests that piperacillin/tazobactam should be the treatment of choice on an empirical basis prior to a definitive bacteriological study and in cases with negative culture reports.

No abstract

Background:Midazolam is a water soluble benzodiazepine which is frequently administered by intravenous and oral routes in our institution. Its nasal spray has become recently available.Objectives:To compare the efficacy of midazolam administered orally and by intranasal spray, with the specific objective of assessing their efficacy in terms of acceptability to the patients, whether they achieve a satisfactory sedation score, and the overall ease of inducing general anesthesia.Patients and Methods:Sixty healthy children of ASA grade I or II, aged 2–6 years who were undergoing elective surgery of approximately 30 minutes duration, were assigned to receive midazolam premedication in a randomized controlled trial. They were divided into 2 groups of 30 patients each. Group I: 30 patients received midazolam orally (parenteral solution mixed in honey). Group II: 30 patients received a commercially available midazolam nasal spray.Results:The study shows that children better accepted the drug when administered orally than when administered intranasally, although satisfactory sedation scores at 10 and 20 minutes were better in the nasal spray group than in the oral group [i.e., 6 (20%) vs. 0 (0%) at 10 min and 16 (53.3%) vs. 13 (43.3%), respectively]. Satisfactory ease of induction scores [24 (80%) vs. 13 (43.3%)], recovery times [11.63 ± 4.19 minutes vs. 25.20 ± 9.36 minutes], and post-anesthesia recovery scores were better in the nasal spray group (group II) than in the oral group (group I).Conclusions:On the basis of our study, we conclude that nasal midazolam spray is acceptable and is a good alternative to oral midazolam as premedication in the pediatric population.

No abstract