Amputation Revision Surgery - Refining the surgical approach. Ten years of experience and 250 cases, impressions, outcomes, and thoughts for the future

What Are the Factors Associated With Revision Surgery on the Residual Limb and Functional Results in Patients With Posttraumatic Lower Limb Amputations?

BACKGROUND

Lower limb amputations performed after trauma are associated with a high risk of revision surgery. While the factors influencing revision surgery in the upper limbs have been studied, no studies have analyzed these factors in the lower limbs. Existing explanations for these revision surgeries are unclear, often leaving patients uninformed. Surgeons also lack the tools to explain the factors that influence repeat operations to patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide surgeons with some answers so they can inform their patients undergoing posttraumatic lower limb amputation, whether military or civilian.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What was the survivorship of the initial amputation free from any revision surgery? (2) What patient- and injury-related factors were associated with revision amputation? (3) Do these factors influence functional outcomes in these patients?

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted between January 2010 and February 2020 on patients who had undergone traumatic lower limb amputation. Between January 2010 and February 2020, 322 patients underwent amputation or were followed up at Percy Military University Hospital. Thirty-one patients had undergone amputation at another center, 178 had undergone amputation for nontraumatic reasons, and 27 patients had only upper limb amputations. Of those remaining, 1 died before 6 months, and 6% (5 of 86) were not fitted with a prosthesis, leaving 99% (85 of 86) for survivorship free from revision analysis and 93% (80 of 86) for functional endpoints analysis in this retrospective study at a median of 6.5 years (IQR 5 to 9) following the index amputation. The median age at the time of amputation was 31 years (IQR 26 to 52), 85% (72 of 85) of patients were men, and 31% (26 of 85) were military personnel. Revision surgery was defined as surgery performed at or after 6 months to ensure that the residual limb was healed and fitted with a prosthesis. Revision procedures performed before 6 months (median 2 [IQR 0 to 7]) were considered as part of the initial residual limb formation surgery. We performed Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis for the time free from revision amputation from 6 months after amputation. We considered the competitive risk of death using a Fine-Gray model by an ascending stepwise procedure. To answer our third research question, we performed a chart review and assessed patients' use of prostheses and assistive devices and the percentage of patients who returned to work. An ordinal logistic regression was used to analyze the factors influencing functional outcome using an ascending stepwise procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients (94 limbs) were included, of whom 25 (27 limbs) underwent a revision surgery on the residual limb > 6 months after amputation. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates indicated that 5 years after the initial amputation 64% (95% confidence interval 53% to 77%) of the patients remained free from revision surgery on their residual limb. Factors associated with increased odds of revision amputation were smoking (subdistribution HR 2.6 [95% CI 1.2 to 5.8]; p = 0.02) and an age of > 50 years (subdistribution HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.8]; p = 0.01). Ninety-four percent (80 of 85) of patients were fitted with prostheses, and 40% (32 of 80) of patients used material or human assistance for simple activities of daily living. Seventy-one percent of patients (57 of 80) had returned to work. Ordinal logistic regression revealed an association between preinjury sports activity and the absence of need for assistance in daily activities (OR 9 [95% CI 2.9 to 31.8]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Smoking appeared to be an associated risk factor for residual limb revision surgery in posttraumatic lower limb amputations and is potentially modifiable. Being at least 50 years of age seemed to be associated with a lower incidence of revision surgery, which is probably linked to lower functional demands made on limbs beyond this age. Our study showed a remarkable rate of fitting with a prosthetic device, with an improved functional result if the patient was athletic before the trauma. These results provide more precise information on the care pathway to be considered for each patient. A study with a much larger sample would make it possible to assess the risk factors for the occurrence of each complication involving revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Can Early Post-Operative Scoring of Non-Traumatic Amputees Decrease Rates of Revision Surgery?

Background and Objectives: Medical registries evolved from a basic epidemiological data set to further applications allowing deriving decision making. Revision rates after non-traumatic amputation are high and dramatically impact the following rehabilitation of the amputee. Risk scores for revision surgery after non-traumatic lower limb amputation are still missing. The main objective was to create an amputation registry allowing us to determine risk factors for revision surgery after non-traumatic lower-limb amputation and to develop a score for an early detection and decision-making tool for the therapeutic course of patients at risk for non-traumatic lower limb amputation and/or revision surgery. Materials and Methods: Retrospective data analysis was of patients with major amputations lower limbs in a four-year interval at a University Hospital of maximum care. Medical records of 164 patients analysed demographics, comorbidities, and amputation-related factors. Descriptive statistics analysed demographics, prevalence of amputation level and comorbidities of non-traumatic lower limb amputees with and without revision surgery. Correlation analysis identified parameters determining revision surgery. Results: In 4 years, 199 major amputations were performed; 88% were amputated for non-traumatic reasons. A total of 27% of the non-traumatic cohort needed revision surgery. Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (72%), atherosclerosis (69%), diabetes (42%), arterial hypertension (38%), overweight (BMI > 25), initial gangrene (47%), sepsis (19%), age > 68.2 years and nicotine abuse (17%) were set as relevant within this study and given a non-traumatic amputation score. Correlation analysis revealed delayed wound healing (confidence interval: 64.1% (47.18%; 78.8%)), a hospital length of stay before amputation of longer than 32 days (confidence interval: 32.3 (23.2; 41.3)), and a BKA amputation level (confidence interval: 74.4% (58%; 87%)) as risk factors for revision surgery after non-traumatic amputation. A combined score including all parameters was drafted to identify non-traumatic amputees at risk for revision surgery. Conclusions: Our results describe novel scoring systems for risk assessment for non-traumatic amputations and for revision surgery at non-traumatic amputations. It may be used after further prospective evaluation as an early-warning system for amputated limbs at risk of revision.

How much is a leg worth following radical tumor resection in bone sarcomas? Literature review

Bone sarcomas of the lower extremities are rare malignancies occurring mostly amongst adolescents and young adults. Necessarily, the therapy conducted in sarcoma centers is multimodal and multidisciplinary. In certain cases, in a metastasis free situation with adequate therapy, an overall survival rate of 90% can be achieved. Two principal surgical procedures exit for the local control of the malignancy: 1. Limb salvage with biological with/or endoprosthetic reconstruction; and, 2. amputation with restoration of the function with exoprosthesis or endo-exoprosthesis. Currently, limb salvage procedures are performed in up to 95% of cases. In contrast, amputation is performed when the disease has reached an advanced stage or limb salvage has failed. Both of the surgical options have their risks and possible complications. According to the literature, there should be no significant difference between limb salvage and amputation with respect to long-term overall survival, overall quality of life, psycho-socio-economic outcomes, or patient satisfaction. An important advantage of limb salvage is greater everyday functionality. With the expanded indication of limb salvage and great survival rates, the cases of late complications in patients expecting to maintain their own leg continues to increase. In some cases, it requires multiple interventions, ranging from minor up to the most complex revisions, to maintain the functionality of the extremity. Despite the great costs, personal effort, and the possible complications, limb salvage could be a suitable method to achieve functionally beneficial outcomes and patient satisfaction in bone sarcomas of the lower extremities over the long-term even in cases involving complications.

Revision Surgery Following Severe Frostbite Injury Compared to Similar Hand and Foot Burns

Severe frostbite is associated with loss of digits or limbs and high levels of morbidity. The current practice is to salvage as much of the limb/digit as possible with the use of thrombolytic and adjuvant therapies. Sequelae from amputation can include severe nerve pain and poor wound healing requiring revision surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the rate of revision surgery after primary amputation and compare this to revision surgery in isolated hand/foot burns. Frostbite and burn patients from 2014 to 2019 were identified in the prospectively maintained database at a single urban burn and trauma center. Patients with primary amputations related to isolated hand/foot burns or frostbite were included in the study. Descriptive statistics included Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test. A total of 63 patients, 54 frostbite injuries and 9 isolated hand or foot burns, met inclusion criteria for the study. The rate of revision surgery was similar following frostbite and burn injury (24% vs 33%, P = .681). There were no significant differences in age, sex, or length of stay on the primary hospitalization between those that required revision surgery and those that did not. Neither the impacted limb nor the presence of infection or cellulitis on primary amputation was associated with future need for revision surgery. Of the 16 patients requiring revision surgery, 5 (31%) required additional debridement alone, 6 (38%) required reamputation alone, and 5 required both. A total of 6 patients (38%) had cellulitis or infection at the time of revision surgery. Time from primary surgery to revision ranged from 4 days to 3 years. Planned, delayed primary amputation is a mainstay of frostbite management. To our knowledge, this is the first assessment of revision surgery in the setting of severe frostbite injury. Our observed rate of revision surgery following frostbite injury did not differ significantly from revision surgery in the setting of isolated hand or foot burns. This study brings up important questions of timing and surgical planning in these complex patients that will require a multicenter collaborative study.