Endovascular versus open repair of isolated superficial femoral and popliteal artery injuries

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular therapy versus open surgical repair for the traumatic lower extremity arterial injury

OBJECTIVE

For traumatic lower extremity artery injury, it is unclear whether it is better to perform endovascular therapy (ET) or open surgical repair (OSR). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of ET versus OSR for traumatic lower extremity artery injury.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies. Cohort studies and case series reporting outcomes of ET or OSR were eligible for inclusion. Robins-I tool and an 18-item tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was amputation. The secondary outcomes included fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, mortality, length of stay and lower extremity nerve injury. We used the random effects model to calculate pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies with low or moderate risk of bias were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that patients who underwent ET had a significantly decreased risk of major amputation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.85; I2=34%) and fasciotomy or compartment syndrome (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.50, I2 = 14%) than patients who underwent OSR. No significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding all-cause mortality (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.75-1.64, I2 = 31%). Patients with ET repair had a shorter length of stay than patients with OSR repair (MD=-5.06, 95% CI -6.76 to -3.36, I2 = 65%). Intraoperative nerve injury was just reported in OSR patients with a pooled incidence of 15% (95% CI 6%-27%).

CONCLUSION

Endovascular therapy may represent a better choice for patients with traumatic lower extremity arterial injury, because it can provide lower risks of amputation, fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, and nerve injury, as well as shorter length of stay.

Open versus endovascular repair of penetrating non-aortic arterial injuries: A systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-aortic arterial injuries are common and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Historically, open surgical repair (OSR) was the conventional method of repair. With recent advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endovascular repair (ER) has gained popularity. We sought to compare outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular and open repairs of traumatic non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus Database from January 1st, 1990, to March 20th, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full text review. Articles assessing clinically important outcomes between OSR and ER in penetrating arterial injuries were included. Exclusion criteria included blunt injuries, aortic injuries, pediatric populations, review articles, and non-English articles. Odds ratios (OR) and Cohen's d ratios were used to quantify differences in morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3770 articles were identified, of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The articles comprised a total of 8369 patients of whom 90 % were male with a median age of 28 years. 85 % of patients were treated with OSR while 15 % underwent ER. With regards to injury characteristics, those who underwent ER were less likely to present with concurrent venous injuries (OR: 0.41; 95 %CI: 0.18, 0.94; p = 0.03). Regarding hospital outcomes, patients who underwent ER had a lower likelihood of in-hospital or 30-day mortality (OR: 0.72; 95 %CI: 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.02) and compartment syndrome (OR: 0.29, 95 %CI: 0.12, 0.71; p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular repair of non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries is increasingly common, however open repair remains the most common approach. Compared to ER, OSR was associated with higher odds of compartment syndrome and mortality. Further prospective research is warranted to determine the patient populations and injury patterns that most significantly benefit from an endovascular approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses.

Prognostic factors for femoropopliteal vascular injuries: surgical decisions matter

Background

Lower limbs are frequently involved in vascular trauma, but it is still not clear which factors lead to unfavorable clinical outcomes.

Objectives

To determine the clinical profile of patients with femoropopliteal injuries, the trauma mechanisms, and treatment and identify which factors led to unfavorable outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective study based on the medical records of patients treated from 2017 to 2021. The following data were assessed: sex, age, distance to reach the hospital, trauma mechanism, hypovolemic shock, additional injuries, treatment of vascular injuries, whether fasciotomy was needed, inappropriate intraoperative decisions, and injury severity score. Need for surgical reintervention, amputation, and death were defined as unfavorable outcomes. Univariate, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

Results

The sample comprised 94 patients; 83% were men; mean age was 30.8 years; combined arterial and venous injuries prevailed (57.5%); and superficial femoral vessels were the most affected (61.7%). Penetrating mechanisms prevailed (80.9%). Arterial injuries were most frequently treated with venous graft (59.6%) and venous injuries underwent ligation (81.4%). In 15% of cases, inappropriate surgical decisions were detected; most often use of the ipsilateral great saphenous vein for arterial reconstruction. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 44.7%: surgical reintervention was necessary in 21.3% and limb amputation in 25.5%, while 9.5% of the patients died.

Conclusions

These injuries mainly involved young men, victims of gunshot wounds. Superficial femoral vessels were the most injured; concomitant non-vascular trauma was frequent, mainly fractures. Inappropriate surgical decisions increased the need for reinterventions by 34 times. Need for fasciotomy, presence of fracture/dislocation, blunt trauma mechanism, and popliteal artery injury increased the risk of amputation.

Therapeutic management and amputation options in a long time delayed blunt popliteal artery injury

PURPOSE

To report the experience of treatment on blunt traumatic popliteal artery injury (PAI) combined orthopedic injuries and determine the amputation-associated factors.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2019, 55 patients in level I trauma center with traumatic blunt PAI were retrospectively reviewed. Variables were retrospectively collected and statistically analyzed. Patients with PAI with limb selvage, primary amputation, and secondary amputation were retrospectively grouped and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients with a median age of 41.4 years (range 18-70), of which 45 were males (81.8%) and 10 were females (18.2%), were enrolled. The overall amputation rate was 36.4% because 88.6% of patients faced more than 6 h of delay before treatment. The average injury severe score (ISS) and abbreviated injury score (AIS) were 10.4 (range 9-34) and 8.2 (range 5-16), respectively. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the number of hospitalization days was a significantly related factor to amputation. After a median follow-up of 56 months (range 12-132), no death, another limb loss, or claudication was found in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PAI are commonly accompanied by multiple injuries that increase the risk of amputation; therefore, timely treatments are urgently required. Reducing the severity of ischemia by fasciotomy, not losing time by performing preoperative imaging or diagnostic tests, and repairing the associated venous injury can help to optimize the rates of limb salvage. However, impact factors, such as the gender and age of the patient, injured mechanisms, concomitant injuries, AIS, ISS, and surgical times, are not associated with the outcomes of amputation. Nonetheless, endeavors to salvage the limbs as far as possible should be made.

Five-year outcomes after bypass graft versus Fogarty balloon catheter for the treatment of acute blunt popliteal artery injury

PURPOSE

To evaluate long-term clinical outcomes after revascularization by bypass graft versus Fogarty balloon catheter in acute blunt popliteal artery injury and identify risk factors contributing to amputation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted in patients treated for acute blunt PAI between 2011 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent bypass graft and Fogarty balloon catheter. The cumulative limb salvage rate was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier test and compared with Breslow-Wilcoxon test. Cox proportional hazard model was performed to estimate the potential risk factors for amputation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal cut-off value for the potential risk factors.

RESULTS

The overall limb salvage rate was 60.4% (29/48), including 24 patients (66.7%) in bypass graft, and 5 patients (41.7%) in Fogarty balloon catheter with mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 2-10 years). Among amputees, 15 patients (15/19, 78.9%) received primary amputation due to vascular failure or severe soft tissue damage, and 4 received secondary amputation because of chronic bone infection or neurologic deficit. Kaplan-Meier curves showed patients who received Fogarty balloon catheter had significantly higher amputation rate than those received bypass graft, with a hazard ratio of 3.801 (95% CI: 1.162-12.43, p = 0.009). In addition, Cox proportional hazard model revealed that MESS was the only independent risk factor for patients developing amputation, and the optimal cut-off value of MESS was 8.

CONCLUSION

Five-year outcome demonstrated that Fogarty balloon catheter is not a safe procedure and has significantly higher amputation rate in severe blunt PAI. MESS is the only risk factor for amputation.

Management and outcomes of firearm-related vascular injuries

BACKGROUND

Violence due to firearms is a major global public health issue and vascular injuries from firearms are particularly lethal. The aim of this study was to analyse population-based epidemiology of firearm-related vascular injuries.

METHODS

This was a retrospective nationwide epidemiological study including all patients with firearm injuries from the national Swedish Trauma Registry (SweTrau) from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019. There were 71,879 trauma patients registered during the study period, of which 1010 patients were identified with firearm injuries (1.4%), and 162 (16.0%) patients with at least one firearm-related vascular injury.

RESULTS

There were 162 patients admitted with 238 firearm-related vascular injuries, 96.9% men (n = 157), median age 26.0 years [IQR 22-33]. There was an increase in vascular firearm injuries over time (P < 0.005). The most common anatomical vascular injury location was lower extremity (41.7%) followed by abdomen (18.9%) and chest (18.9%). The dominating vascular injuries were common femoral artery (17.6%, 42/238), superficial femoral artery (7.1%, 17/238), and iliac artery (7.1%, 17/238). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mmHg or no palpable radial pulse in the emergency department was seen in 37.7% (58/154) of patients. The most common vascular injuries in this cohort with hemodynamic instability were thoracic aorta 16.5% (16/97), femoral artery 10.3% (10/97), inferior vena cava 7.2% (7/97), lung vessels 6.2% (6/97) and iliac vessels 5.2% (5/97). There were 156 registered vascular surgery procedures including vascular suturing (22%, 34/156) and bypass/interposition graft (21%, 32/156). Endovascular stent was placed in five patients (3.2%). The 30-day and 90-day mortality was 29.9% (50/162) and 33.3% (54/162), respectively. Most deaths (79.6%; 43/54) were within 24-h of injury. In the multivariate regression analysis, vascular injury to chest (P < 0.001) or abdomen (P = 0.002) and injury specifically to thoracic aorta (P < 0.001) or femoral artery (P = 0.022) were associated with 24-h mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Firearm-related vascular injuries caused significant morbidity and mortality. The lower extremity was the most common injury location but vascular injuries to chest and abdomen were most lethal. Improved early hemorrhage control strategies seem critical for better outcome.

Outcomes of vascular trauma associated with an evolution in the use of endovascular management

BACKGROUND

The availability of endovascular techniques has led to a paradigm shift in the management of vascular injury. While previous reports showed trends towards the increased use of catheter-based techniques, there have been no contemporary studies of practice patterns and how these approaches differ by anatomic distributions of injury. The objective of this study is to provide a temporal assessment of the use of endovascular techniques in the management of torso, junctional (subclavian, axillary, iliac), and extremity injury and to evaluate any association with survival and length of stay.

METHODS

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment registry (PROOVIT) is the only large multicenter database focusing specifically on the management of vascular trauma. Patients in the AAST PROOVIT registry from 2013-2019 with arterial injuries were queried, and radial/ulnar, and tibial artery injuries were excluded. The primary aim was to evaluate the frequency in use of endovascular techniques over time and by body region. A secondary analysis evaluated the trends for junctional injuries and compared the mortality between those treated with open vs. endovascular repair.

RESULTS

Of the 3,249 patients included, 76% were male, and overall treatment type was 42% nonoperative, 44% open, 14% endovascular. Endovascular treatment increased an average of 2% per year from 2013-2019 (Range: 17-35%, R² =.61). The use of endovascular techniques for junctional injuries increased by 5% per year (Range: 33%-63%, R² =.89). Endovascular treatment was more common for thoracic, abdominal, and cerebrovascular injuries, and least likely in upper and lower extremity injuries. Injury severity score (ISS) was higher for patients receiving endovascular repair in every vascular bed except lower extremity. Endovascular repair was associated with significantly lower mortality than open repair for thoracic (5% vs. 46%, p<.001) and abdominal injuries (15% vs 38%, p<.001). For junctional injuries, endovascular repair was associated with a non-statistically significant lower mortality (19% vs. 29%, p=.099), despite higher ISS (25 vs. 21, p=.003) compared to open repair.

CONCLUSION

The reported use of endovascular techniques within the PROOVIT registry increased more than 10% over a 6-year period. This increase was associated with improved survival, especially for patients with junctional vascular injuries. Practices and training programs should account for these changes by providing access to endovascular technologies and instruction in the catheter-based skill sets to optimize outcomes in the future.

The Characteristics and Results of Endovascular Devices in Trauma (CREDiT) study: Multi-institutional results

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular techniques are increasingly used to repair major traumatic vascular injuries, but most endovascular implants are not designed/approved for trauma-specific indications. No inventory guidelines exist for the devices used in these procedures. We aimed to describe the use and characteristics of endovascular implants used for repair of vascular injuries to allow for better inventory management.

METHODS

This CREDiT study is a six-year retrospective cohort analysis of endovascular procedures performed for repair of traumatic arterial injuries at five participating US trauma centers. For each treated vessel, procedural and device details were recorded and outcomes assessed with the aim of defining the range of implants and sizes used for these interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 94 cases were identified; 58 (61%) were descending thoracic aorta, 14 (15%) axillosubclavian, 5 carotid, 4 abdominal aortic, 4 common iliac, 7 femoropopliteal, and 1 renal. Vascular surgeons performed 54% of cases, trauma surgeons 17%, IR/CT Surgery 29%. Systemic heparin was administered in 68% and procedures were performed a median of 9 h after arrival (IQR 3-24 h). Primary arterial access was femoral in 93% of cases, 49% were bilateral. Brachial/radial access was used primarily in 6 cases, and secondary to femoral in 9. The most common implant was self-expanding stent graft; 18% used >1 stent. Implants ranged in diameter and length based on vessel size. Five of 94 implants underwent reintervention (1 open surgery) at a median of 4d postop (range 2-60d). Two occlusions and 1 stenosis were present at follow-up at a median of 1 month (range 0-72 m).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular reconstruction of injured arteries requires a broad range of implant types, diameters, and lengths which should be readily available in trauma centers. Stent occlusions/stenoses are rare and can typically be managed by endovascular means.

Treatment of vascular non-iatrogenic injuries of upper and lower extremities in tertiary vascular center

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine demographic and baseline characteristics of patients with vascular injuries of extremities and to define the most relevant factors which influenced an early outcome, as well as limb salvage after the management of vascular trauma.

METHODS

This study used the database that included 395 patients with peripheral arterial injuries, who were treated in the tertiary vascular university center in the period between 2005-2020. Exclusion criteria were isolated thoracic, abdominal and neck injuries as well as iatrogenic injuries and injuries of intravenous addicts. Univariate binary logistic regression analysis and multiple logistic regression were used to determine risk factors for lomb loss (after vascular reconstruction) or mortality. Decision to perform primary amputation (without vascular reconstruction) was based on surgeons' preference and experience.

RESULTS

Out of 395 vascular injuries treated in the period 2005-2020, 210 (53.2%) presented with non-iatrogenic vascular injuries of upper and lower extremities were analyzed. According to the univariate regression analysis, hemorrhage as the main clinical manifestation on admission (P=0.035) and early reintervention (P=0.048) increased, while an early patency of repaired artery (0.010) significantly decreased a 30-day amputation rate. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of these three variables showed that only early patency of repaired artery significantly decreased the early amputation rate (P=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on presented experience, the patency of vascular reconstruction plays a crucial role in limb salvage in patients with non-iatrogenic peripheral vascular injuries. All factors that might influence the patency should be in focus of improvement.

The Role of Endovascular Repair of Popliteal Arterial Injuries in the Acute Setting

OBJECTIVES

The role of endovascular surgery in the treatment of popliteal arterial injuries is not well established. As with other popliteal pathology, open repair has traditionally been considered the gold standard. As data has accumulated and technology advanced, however, a reassessment of the role of endovascular surgery is warranted. The aim of this study is to perform a noninferiority comparison of open versus endovascular management of traumatic popliteal injuries. Our hypothesis is that endovascular management is noninferior to open management of traumatic popliteal injuries.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was searched for adult patients from 2002-2016 for isolated popliteal arterial injury. The study used a standard noninferiority methodology to compare rates of amputation and compartment syndrome between endovascular and open surgery. Margins for noninferiority were established using established published rates of complications: 17.1% for amputations and 23.0% for compartment syndrome. Endovascular intervention would be considered noninferior to open surgery if the lower bound confidence of the complication proportion (endo/open complication rate) was greater than the pre-defined noninferiority margin.

RESULTS

3698 patients met inclusion criteria, with blunt injury accounting for 2117 (57%) and penetrating injury accounting for 1581 (43%). Within the blunt group, 1976 (93.3%) underwent open and 141 (6.7%) endovascular surgery. The rate of compartment syndrome (percentage and 95% confidence interval) after surgery for open repair was 9.9 (8.6-11.2) and 6.4 (3.2-11.3) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 64.6 (59.7-69.5). The rate of amputation for open repair was 15.7 (14.2-17.4) and 14.2 (9.2-20.6) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 90.4 (87.4-93.4). Within the penetrating group, 1525 (96.5%) underwent open repair and 56 (3.5%) endovascular surgery. The rate of compartment syndrome after surgery for open repair was 14.9 (13.2-16.7) and 5.4 (1.5-13.6) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 36.2 (31.3-41.1). The rate of amputation for open repair was 4.3 (3.3-5.4) and 3.6 (0.7-11.0) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 83.7 (75.3-90.6).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that endovascular repair of popliteal artery injury may be noninferior to open repair with respect to limb preservation . Further examination of endovascular repair in popliteal artery injury is warranted.

Five-year outcomes of trauma-specific function in patients after acute blunt popliteal artery injury: a matched cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies focus on the trauma-specific functional outcomes after surgical revascularization and risk factors contributing to poor outcomes in patients with acute blunt popliteal artery injury (PAI). The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term trauma-specific functional outcomes in patients with acute blunt PAI and identify the associated risk factors.

METHODS

There were 36 patients with acute blunt PAI who require surgical revascularization at a national trauma center of West China Hospital of Sichuan University between March 2010 and April 2019. After propensity matching, each patient was matched to one patient who did not have a concomitant vascular injury in control cohort. Functional outcomes were assessed with trauma-specific functional scores, physical examination of range of motion, nerve functional status and knee stability. A logistics regression model was established to determine the independent risk factors.

RESULTS

The 5-year (range 2-10 years) follow-up showed that 22 patients (22/36, 61.1%) had functional deficit due to limited activity or chronic neurological symptoms. Patients in vascular cohort had significantly decreased FIM score and AHFS score compared with matched patients without vascular involvement (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in KSS (P = 0.136). Spearman correlation analysis of functional scores in vascular cohort showed that the FIM score was positively correlated with AHFS score (r = 0.926, P < 0.001), but not correlated with the KSS (r =  - 0.007, P = 0.967). Additionally, there was significant difference in the range of motion of ankle between two groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.034). Logistic regression analysis further demonstrated nerve injuries and compartment syndrome were risk factors for poor ankle function after surgery (OR 22.580, P = 0.036 and OR 12.674, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Most patients who sustained blunt PAI had significant functional deficit associated with limited activity and chronic neurological symptoms of ankle and foot, and poor functional outcomes were related to nerve injury and compartment syndrome. Therefore, early and effective decompression for compartment syndrome remains the only potentially modifiable risk factor for improving functional outcomes following PAI.

Contemporary outcomes of traumatic popliteal artery injury repair from the popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma study

OBJECTIVE

Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with the greatest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries, with amputation rates of 10% to 15%. The purpose of the present study was to examine the outcomes of patients who had undergone operative repair for traumatic popliteal arterial injuries and identify the factors independently associated with limb loss.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective review of all patients with traumatic popliteal artery injuries from 2007 to 2018 was performed. All the patients who had undergone operative repair of popliteal arterial injuries were included in the present analysis. The patients who had required a major lower extremity amputation (transtibial or transfemoral) were compared with those with successful limb salvage at the last follow-up. The significant predictors (P < .05) for amputation on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients from 11 institutions were included in the present analysis. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 21-40 years), and 79% were men. The median follow-up was 72 days (interquartile range, 20-366 days). The overall major amputation rate was 13%. Primary repair had been performed in 17% of patients, patch repair in 2%, and interposition or bypass in 81%. One patient had undergone endovascular repair with stenting. The overall 1-year primary patency was 89%. Of the patients who had lost primary patency, 46% ultimately required major amputation. Early loss (within 30 days postoperatively) of primary patency was five times more frequent for the patients who had subsequently required amputation. On multivariate regression, the significant perioperative factors independently associated with major amputation included the initial POPSAVEIT (popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma) score, loss of primary patency, absence of detectable immediate postoperative pedal Doppler signals, and lack of postoperative antiplatelet therapy. Concomitant popliteal vein injury, popliteal injury location (P1, P2, P3), injury severity score, and tibial vs popliteal distal bypass target were not independently associated with amputation.

CONCLUSIONS

Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with a significant rate of major amputation. The preoperative POPSAVEIT score remained independently associated with amputation after including the perioperative factors. The lack of postoperative pedal Doppler signals and loss of primary patency were highly associated with major amputation. The use of postoperative antiplatelet therapy was inversely associated with amputation, perhaps indicating a protective effect.

Popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma study

OBJECTIVE

Traumatic popliteal vascular injuries are associated with the highest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries. A method to evaluate the predictors of amputation is needed because previous scores could not be validated. In the present study, we aimed to provide a simplified scoring system (POPSAVEIT [popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma]) that could be used preoperatively to risk stratify patients with traumatic popliteal vascular injuries for amputation.

METHODS

A review of patients sustaining traumatic popliteal artery injuries was performed. Patients requiring amputation were compared with those with limb salvage at the last follow-up. Of these patients, 80% were randomly assigned to a training group for score generation and 20% to a testing group for validation. Significant predictors of amputation (P < .1) on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. Those with P < .05 on multivariable analysis were assigned points according to the relative value of their odds ratios (ORs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to determine low- vs high-risk scores. An area under the curve of >0.65 was considered adequate for validation.

RESULTS

A total of 355 patients were included, with an overall amputation rate of 16%. On multivariate regression analysis, the risk factors independently associated with amputation in the final model were as follows: systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (OR, 3.2; P = .027; 1 point), associated orthopedic injury (OR, 4.9; P = .014; 2 points), and a lack of preoperative pedal Doppler signals (OR, 5.5; P = .002; 2 points [or 1 point for a lack of palpable pedal pulses if Doppler signal data were unavailable]). A score of ≥3 was found to maximize the sensitivity (85%) and specificity (49%) for a high risk of amputation. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the validation group had an area under the curve of 0.750, meeting the threshold for score validation.

CONCLUSIONS

The POPSAVEIT score provides a simple and practical method to effectively stratify patients preoperatively into low- and high-risk major amputation categories.