National Population Study of the Effect of Structure and Process on Outcomes of Digit Replantation

Development and external validation of a prediction model for digit replantation failure after traumatic amputations based on a prospective multicenter cohort

BACKGROUND

Failure of digit replantation after traumatic amputation is difficult to predict. The authors aimed to develop a prognostic model to better identify factors that better predict replantation failure following traumatic digit amputation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multicenter prospective cohort, the authors identified patients who had received digit replantation between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2019. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed successively to identify independently predictive factors for failure of replanted digit. To reduce overfitting, the Bayesian information criterion was used to reduce variables in the original model. Nomograms were created with the reduced model after model selection. This model was then internally validated with bootstrap resampling and further externally validated in validation cohort.

RESULTS

Digit replantation was failed in 101 of 1062 (9.5%) digits and 146 of 1156 digits (12.6%) in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The authors found that six independent prognostic variables were associated with digit replantation failure: age, mechanism of injury, ischemia duration, smoking status, amputation pattern (complete or incomplete), and surgeon's experience. The prediction model achieved good discrimination, with concordance indexes of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.85) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65-0.74) in predicting digit failure in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Calibration curves were well-fitted for both training and validation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed prediction model effectively predicted the failure rate of digit replantation for individual digits of all patients. It could assist in selecting the most suitable surgical plan for the patient.

Indications for replantation and factors that predict success

Since the advent of replantation techniques, there has been uneven progress in terms of success-even considering whether success is defined as continued perfusion of the digit or long term functional outcomes. Early enthusiasm and success have not been maintained despite increasing familiarity with microsurgical techniques and greater understanding of how to optimize outcomes for the individual components of replantation such as tendon repair, nerve repair, and osteosynthesis. Practitioners participating in the care of patients undergoing replantation should be familiar with the history and current understanding of both the indications and contraindications for the procedure, post-operative rehabilitation, and factors contributing to functional outcomes. A review of the literature from the first publications on the topic demonstrates evolution in practice and understanding of which patients should be indicated for replantation. Indications can be considered in three broad categories: injury factors, patient factors, and care context factors. These factors intersect with one another and can inform the surgeon pre-operatively regarding the most likely outcome for a given patient. This insight is critical to discuss pre-operatively with the patient in order to make a shared decision about how to manage their injury.

Is Prolonged Use of Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Postoperative Antithrombotic and Antispasmodic Treatments Necessary After Digit Replantation or Revascularization?

BACKGROUND

Ensuring the patency of repaired vessels is pivotal in improving the success rate of digit replantation. There is no consensus on how to best approach postoperative treatment for digit replantation. The influence of postoperative treatment on the risk of failure of revascularization or replantation remains unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is there an increased risk of postoperative infection with early discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis? (2) How are anxiety and depression affected by a treatment protocol consisting of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis and administration of antithrombotic and antispasmodic drugs and by the failure of a revascularization or replantation procedure? (3) Are there differences in the risk of revascularization or replantation failure based on the number of anastomosed arteries and veins? (4) What factors are associated with failure of revascularization or replantation?

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022. Initially, 1045 patients were identified. One hundred two patients chose revision of amputation. In all, 556 were excluded because of contraindications. We included all patients in whom the anatomic structures of the amputated part of the digit were well preserved, and those with an ischemia time for the amputated part that did not exceed 6 hours. Patients in good health without any other serious associated injuries or systemic diseases and those without a history of smoking were eligible for inclusion. The patients underwent procedures that were performed or supervised by one of four study surgeons. Patients were treated with antibiotic prophylaxis (1 week); patients treated with antithrombotic and antispasmodic drugs were categorized into the prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis group. The remaining patients treated with antibiotic prophylaxis for less than 48 hours and no antithrombotic and no antispasmodic drugs were categorized into the nonprolonged antibiotic prophylaxis group. Postoperative follow-up was for a minimum of 1 month. Based on the inclusion criteria, 387 participants with 465 digits were selected for an analysis of postoperative infection. Twenty-five participants with a postoperative infection (six digits) and other complications (19 digits) were excluded from the next stage of the study, in which we assessed factors associated with the risk of failure of revascularization or replantation. A total of 362 participants with 440 digits were examined, including the postoperative survival rate, variation in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores, the association between the survival rate and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores, and the survival rate based on the number of anastomosed vessels. Postoperative infection was defined as swelling, erythema, pain, purulent discharge, or a positive bacterial culture result. Patients were followed for 1 month. The differences in anxiety and depression scores between the two treatment groups and the differences in anxiety and depression scores based on failure of revascularization or replantation were determined. The difference in the risk of revascularization or replantation failure based on the number of anastomosed arteries and veins was assessed. Except for statistically significant variables (injury type and procedure), we thought that the number of arteries, number of veins, Tamai level, treatment protocol, and surgeons would be important. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to perform an adjusted analysis of risk factors such as postoperative protocol, injury type, procedure, number of arteries, number of veins, Tamai level, and surgeon.

RESULTS

Postoperative infection did not appear to increase without prolonged use of antibiotic prophylaxis beyond 48 hours (1% [3 of 327] versus 2% [3 of 138]; OR 2.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5 to 12.0]; p = 0.37). Intervention with antithrombotic and antispasmodic therapy increased the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (11.2 ± 3.0 versus 6.7 ± 2.9, mean difference 4.5 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.2]; p < 0.01) and depression (7.9 ± 3.2 versus 5.2 ± 2.7, mean difference 2.7 [95% CI 2.1 to 3.4]; p < 0.01). In the analysis based on the failure of revascularization or replantation, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (11.4 ± 4.4 versus 9.7 ± 3.5, mean difference 1.7 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.8]; p < 0.01) and depression (8.5 ± 4.6 versus 7.0 ± 3.1, mean difference 1.5 [95% CI 0.5 to 2.5]; p < 0.01) were higher in the failed revascularization or replantation group than in the successful revascularization or replantation group. There was no increase in the artery-related risk of failure (one versus two anastomosed arteries: 91% versus 89%, OR 1.3 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.6]; p = 0.53). For patients with anastomosed veins, a similar outcome was observed for the two vein-related risk of failure (two versus one anastomosed vein: 90% versus 89%, OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.2 to 3.8]; p = 0.95) and three vein-related risk of failure (three versus one vein anastomosed: 96% versus 89%, OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.1 to 2.4]; p = 0.29). Factors associated with failure of revascularization or replantation included the mechanism of injury (crush: OR 4.2 [95% CI 1.6 to 11.2]; p < 0.01, avulsion: OR 10.2 [95% CI 3.4 to 30.7]; p < 0.01). Revascularization had a lower risk of failure than replantation (OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.0]; p = 0.04). Treatment with a protocol of prolonged antibiotics, antithrombotics, and antispasmodics was not associated with a lower risk of failure (OR 1.2 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.3]; p = 0.63).

CONCLUSION

With proper wound debridement and patency of repaired vessels, prolonged use of antibiotic prophylaxis and regular antithrombotic and antispasmodic treatment may not be necessary for successful digit replantation. However, it may be associated with higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores. Postoperative mental status is associated with digit survival. Well-repaired vessels, instead of the number of anastomosed vessels, could be critical to survival and decrease the influence of risk factors. Further research on consensus guidelines that compare postoperative treatment and the surgeon's level of expertise after digit replantation should be conducted at multiple institutions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.