Long-term results after internal partial forefoot amputation (resection): a retrospective analysis

Comparative Efficacy of Conservative Surgery vs Minor Amputation for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical intervention for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). Conservative surgery-amputation-free resection of infected bone and soft tissues-is gaining traction as an alternative to minor amputation. Our primary objective was to explore the comparative effectiveness of conservative surgery and minor amputations in clinical failure risk 1 year after index intervention. We also aimed to explore microbiological recurrence at 1 year, and revision surgery risk over a 10-year study period.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-center chart review of DFO patients undergoing either conservative surgery or minor amputation. We used multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates to explore the effect of surgical intervention on clinical failure (recurrent diabetic foot infection at surgical site within 1 year after index operation), microbiological recurrence at 1 year, and revision surgery risk over a 10-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

651 patients were included (conservative surgery, n = 121; minor amputation, n = 530). Clinical failure occurred in 34 (28%) patients in the conservative surgery group, and in 111 (21%) of the minor amputation group at 1 year (P = .09). After controlling for potential confounders, we found no association between conservative surgery and clinical failure at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.1). We found no between-group differences in microbiological recurrence at 1 year (conservative surgery: 8 [6.6%]; minor amputation: 33 [6.2%]; P = .25; adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5-2.6). Over the 10-year period, the conservative group underwent significantly more revision surgeries (conservative surgery: 85 [70.2%]; minor amputation: 252 [47.5%]; P < .01; adjusted HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8).

CONCLUSION

We found that with comorbidity-based patient selection, conservative surgery in the treatment of DFO was associated with the same rates of clinical failure and microbiological recurrence at 1 year, but with significantly more revision surgeries during follow-up, compared with minor amputations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative effectiveness study.

Foot Osteomyelitis Location and Rates of Primary or Secondary Major Amputations in Patients With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) often leads to amputations in the lower extremity. Data on the influence of the initial anatomical DFO localization on ultimate major amputation are limited.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, 583 amputation episodes in 344 patients (78 females, 266 males) were analyzed. All received a form of amputation in combination with antibiotic therapy. A multivariate logistic regression analysis with the primary outcome "major amputation" defined as an amputation above the ankle joint was performed. The association of risk factors including location of DFO, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, and Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy was analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 583 episodes, DFO was located in the forefoot in 512 (87.8%), in the midfoot in 43 (7.4%), and in the hindfoot in 28 episodes (4.8%). Overall, 53 of 63 (84.1%) major amputations were performed because of DFO in the setting of peripheral artery disease as primary indication. Overall, limb loss occurred in 6.1% (31/512) of forefoot, 20.9% (9/43) of midfoot, and 46.4% (13/28) of hindfoot DFO. Among these, 22 (41.5%) were performed as the primary treatment, whereas 31 (58.5%) followed previously failed minor amputations. Among this latter group of secondary major amputations, the DFO was localized to the forefoot in 23 of 583 (3.9%), the midfoot in 4 of 583 (0.7%) and the hindfoot in 4 of 583 (0.7%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, initial hindfoot localization was a significant factor (P < .05), whereas peripheral artery disease, smoking, and a midfoot DFO were not found to be risk factors.

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective series, the frequency of limb loss in DFO increased with more proximal initial foot DFO lesions, with almost half of patients losing their limbs with a hindfoot DFO.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Reulceration and Reoperation Incidence After Isolated Partial Fifth Ray Amputations: A Multicenter Study

Ulceration or reulceration is a common complication following partial or total fifth ray amputations. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of reulceration following partial fifth ray amputations. This was a multicenter review of 117 consecutive limbs that underwent partial fifth ray amputations at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Wake Forest Baptist Medical Centers. Procedures were performed at various levels along the fifth metatarsal. Incidence of postoperative ulceration was evaluated on the ipsilateral foot. We hypothesized there would be an association between location of resection and development of reulceration. Seventy-one of 117 patients (60.7%) experienced repeat ulceration following a partial fifth ray amputation. Median follow-up time was 19 months. There was no statistical difference based on location of amputation (proximal, middle, distal, isolated base) with regards to reulceration (p = .166), further amputation (p = .271), transmetatarsal amputation (p = .160), or below knee amputation (p = .769). There was statistical significance in the follow up time between study sites (p = .013), fifth ray amputation reoperation rate between study sites (p = .001), and reulceration rates between study sites (p = .017). Partial fifth ray amputations can be a good initial salvage procedure to clear infection and prolong bipedal ambulatory status. The results of the present study put forward that there is not an association between location of amputations of the fifth ray and development of reulceration, transfer lesions or more proximal amputations.

Limb salvage procedure in immunocompromised patients with therapy-resistant leg ulcers-The value of ultra-radical debridement and instillation negative-pressure wound therapy

The purpose of this study was to analyse the outcome of our established triple treatment strategy in therapy‐resistant deep‐thickness chronic lower leg ulcers. This limb salvage approach consists of ultra‐radical surgical debridement, negative‐pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with or without instillation, and split‐thickness skin grafting. Between March 2003 and December 2019, a total of 16 patients and 24 severe cases of lower leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this highly selective population. A total of seven patients received immunosuppressive medication. Complete wound closure was achieved in 25% and almost 90% of included lower leg ulcer cases after 3 and 24 months of our triple treatment strategy, respectively. The overall limb salvage rate was 100%. Bacterial colonisation of these wounds was significantly reduced after multiple surgical debridements and NPWT. Fasciotomy and radical removal of devitalised tissue such as deep fascia, tendons, and muscles combined with NPWT showed promising results in terms of the overall graft take rate. This treatment strategy was considered as last resort for limb salvage in such a critically ill and immunocompromised patient population. Surgeons should be aware of its efficacy and consider the triple treatment strategy especially if no other limb salvage option remains.