Free-Flap Transfer for Coverage of Transmetatarsal Amputation Stump to Preserve Residual Foot Length

Combining antibiotic-loaded bone cement-based free vastus lateralis muscle-sparing flap with split-thickness skin grafts: A reliable strategy for reconstructing diabetic foot ulcers at non-weight-bearing areas

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) present significant challenges due to their associated amputation rates, mortality, treatment complexity and excessive costs. Our earlier work introduced a wound surgical integrated treatment (WSIT) for DFUs, yielding promising outcomes. This study focuses on a specific WSIT protocol employing antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in the first Stage, and free vastus lateralis muscle-sparing (VLMS) flaps and split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) in the second stage to repair non-weight-bearing DFUs. From July 2021 to July 2023, seven DFU patients (aged 47-71 years) underwent this treatment. Demographic data, hospital stay and repair surgery times were collected. Histological and immunohistochemical analyses assessed angiogenesis, collagen deposition and inflammation. SF-36 questionnaire measured pre- and postoperative quality of life. Preoperative ultrasound Doppler showed that the peak blood flow velocity of the recipient area artery was significantly >30 cm/s (38.6 ± 6.8 cm/s) in all patients. Muscle flap sizes varied from 8 × 3.5 × 1 to 18 × 6 × 2 cm. The operation time of the repair surgery was 156.9 ± 15.08 minutes, and the hospital stay was 18.9 ± 3.3 days. Histological analysis proved that covering DFUs with ALBC induced membrane formation and increased collagen, neovascularization and M2 macrophages fraction while reducing M1 macrophages one. All grafts survived without amputation during a 7- to 24-month follow-up, during which SF-36 scores significantly improved. A combination of ALBC with free VLMS flaps and STSGs proved to be safe and effective for reconstructing non-weight-bearing DFUs. It rapidly controlled infection, enhanced life quality and foot function, and reduced hospitalization time. We advocate integrating this strategy into DFU treatment plans.

Do Transtibial Amputations Outperform Amputations of the Hind- and Midfoot Following Severe Limb Trauma?: A Secondary Analysis of the OUTLET Study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare 18-month clinical and patient-reported outcomes between patients with severe lower-limb injuries treated with a transtibial amputation or a hind- or midfoot amputation. Despite the theoretical benefits of hind- and midfoot-level amputation, we hypothesized that patients with transtibial amputations would report better function and have fewer complications.

METHODS

The study included patients 18 to 60 years of age who were treated with a transtibial amputation (n = 77) or a distal amputation (n = 17) and who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Outcomes Following Severe Distal Tibial, Ankle, and/or Foot Trauma (OUTLET) study. The primary outcome was the difference in Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, and secondary outcomes included pain, complications, amputation revision, and amputation healing.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between patients with distal versus transtibial amputation in any of the domains of the SMFA: dysfunction index [distal versus transtibial], 31.2 versus 22.3 (p = 0.13); daily activities, 37.3 versus 26.0 (p = 0.17); emotional status, 41.4 versus 29.3 (p = 0.07); mobility, 36.5 versus 27.8 (p = 0.20); and bother index, 34.4 versus 23.6 (p = 0.14). Rates of complications requiring revision were higher for distal amputations but not significantly so (23.5% versus 13.3%; p = 0.28). One distal and no transtibial amputees required revision to a higher level (p = 0.18). A higher proportion of patients with distal compared with transtibial amputation required local surgical revision (17.7% versus 13.3%; p = 0.69). There was no significant difference between the distal and transtibial groups in scores on the Brief Pain Index at 18 months post-injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical complication rates did not differ significantly between patients who underwent transtibial versus hind- or midfoot amputation for severe lower-extremity injury. The average SMFA scores were higher (worse), although not significantly different, for patients undergoing distal compared with transtibial amputation, and more patients with distal amputation had a complication requiring surgical revision. Of note, more patients with distal amputation required closure with an atypical flap, which likely contributed to less favorable outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Free Tissue Transfer after Open Transmetatarsal Amputation in Diabetic Patients

BACKGROUND

 Transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) preserves functional gait while avoiding the need for prosthesis. However, when primary closure is not possible after amputation, higher level amputation is recommended. We hypothesize that reconstruction of the amputation stump using free tissue transfer when closure is not possible can achieve similar benefits as primarily closed TMAs.

METHODS

 Twenty-eight TMAs with free flap reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed in 27 diabetic patients with a median age of 61.5 years from 2004 to 2018. The primary outcome was limb salvage rate, with additional evaluation of flap survival, ambulatory status, time until ambulation, and further amputation rate. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed based on the microanastomosis type.

RESULTS

 Flap survival was 93% (26 of 28 flaps) and limb salvage rate of 93% (25 of 27 limbs) was achieved. One patient underwent a second free flap reconstruction. In the two failed cases, higher level amputation was required. Thirteen flaps had partial loss or other complications which were salvaged with secondary intension or skin grafts. Median time until ambulation was 14 days following reconstruction (range: 9-20 days). Patients were followed-up for a median of 344 days (range: 142-594 days). Also, 88% of patients reported good ambulatory function, with a median ambulation score of 4 out of 5 at follow-up. There was no significant difference between the subgroups based on the microanastomosis type.

CONCLUSION

 TMA with free flap reconstruction is an effective method for diabetic limb salvage, yielding good functional outcomes and healing results.

Role of plastic surgeons in the trauma center: national level I trauma center startup experience in South Korea

Although it is well recognized that other surgical specialties perform various procedures related to trauma care, there is a lack of analyses focusing on the role of plastic surgical management in trauma centers. This retrospective study was designed to investigate the scope of plastic surgery services in acute trauma care, using clinical data obtained from a single, regional, level I trauma center.This study included patients who presented to a single, regional, level I trauma center between March 1, 2016 and February 28, 2018. Patients with acute trauma to the facial soft tissue and skeleton, soft tissue of the upper and lower limbs, trunk and perineum, and other areas requiring plastic surgical procedures were included in the analysis. Cases requiring consultation for the correction of posttraumatic deformity or secondary deformity and trauma sequelae, such as scars, were excluded. Data on patients' demographics and detailed surgical procedures were acquired from electronic medical records. The reviewed cases were categorized by the primary anatomical region requiring surgery and the primary procedure performed.A total of 1544 patients underwent surgery, and 2217 procedures were recorded during the 2-year study period. In 2016, 1062 procedures on 690 patients, and, in 2017, 1155 procedures on 787 patients were registered. The average age of the patients who underwent plastic surgical procedure due to a trauma-related cause was 38.4 years (range, 2 days to 91 years), and 1148 patients (77.7%) were male. The head and neck region was the most commonly observed anatomical area that was operated on. The facial bone requiring the largest degree of surgical intervention was the mandible, followed by the zygomatic bone, nasal bones, orbital floor, and maxilla. Microsurgical procedures, such as flap surgery and microsurgery, were performed in 121 cases. The most commonly elevated free flap was the ALT flap (n = 69).Plastic surgeons play various roles in level I trauma centers, such as in the management of facial injury, performing limb-saving free tissue transfers, and complex wound reconstruction with flaps or skin grafts. Thus, plastic surgeons are an essential part of trauma centers.

Guidelines on multidisciplinary approaches for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (2020 edition)

In recent years, as living standards have continued to improve, the number of diabetes patients in China, along with the incidence of complications associated with the disease, has been increasing. Among these complications, diabetic foot disease is one of the main causes of disability and death in diabetic patients. Due to the differences in economy, culture, religion and level of medical care available across different regions, preventive and treatment methods and curative results for diabetic foot vary greatly. In multidisciplinary models built around diabetic foot, the timely assessment and diagnosis of wounds and appropriate methods of prevention and treatment with internal and external surgery are key to clinical practice for this pathology. In 2019, under the leadership of the Jiangsu Medical Association and Chinese Diabetes Society, the writing group for the Guidelines on multidisciplinary approaches for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (2020 edition) was established with the participation of scholars from the specialist areas of endocrinology, burn injury, vascular surgery, orthopedics, foot and ankle surgery and cardiology. Drawing lessons from diabetic foot guidelines from other countries, this guide analyses clinical practices for diabetic foot, queries the theoretical basis and grades and gives recommendations based on the characteristics of the pathology in China. This paper begins with assessments and diagnoses of diabetic foot, then describes treatments for diabetic foot in detail, and ends with protections for high-risk feet and the prevention of ulcers. This manuscript covers the disciplines of internal medicine, surgical, nursing and rehabilitation and describes a total of 50 recommendations that we hope will provide procedures and protocols for clinicians dealing with diabetic foot.

Registry number: IPGRP-2020cn124

Amputations versus Salvage: Reconciling the Differences

BACKGROUND

 There are many factors to consider when choosing between amputations versus salvage in lower extremity reconstructive surgery. Postoperative functionality and survival benefit are critical factors when deciding between limb salvage and amputation.

METHODS

 In this review, we present the evidence and the risks and benefits between these two options in the setting of the acute, trauma population and the chronic, diabetes population.

RESULTS

 The trauma population is on average young without significant comorbidities and with robust vasculature and core strength for recovery. Therefore, these patients can often recover significant function with anamputation and prosthesis. Amputation can therefore be the more desirable in this patient population, especially in the case of complete traumatic disruption, unstable patients, high risk of extensive infection, and significant nerve injury. However, traumatic lower extremity reconstruction is also a viable option, especially in the case of young patients and those with intact plantar sensation and sufficient available tissue coverage. The diabetic population with lower extremity insult has on average a higher comorbidity profile and often lower core strength. These patients therefore often benefit most from reconstruction to preserve limb length and improve survival. However, amputation may be favored for diabetics that have no blood flow to the lower extremity, recalcitrant infection, high-risk comorbidities that preclude multiple operations, and those with end stage renal disease.

CONCLUSION

 Many patient-specific factors should be considered when deciding between amputation vs. salvage in the lower extremity reconstruction population.