The Variables Affecting Decision–making Factors & Outcomes in Salvage versus Amputation for Complex Limb Injuries.
A Ali, S I. Brundage,
Queen Mary University London, Mile End Rd, London E1 4NS, UK
One of the most difficult decisions taken by orthopaedic surgeons is ascertaining when to salvage or amputate a severely injured limb following an overwhelming complex injury. The tendency to consider and take daring initiatives to treat and save the limb should be strengthened by the understanding and recognition that such a decision may or may not be in the favour of patient and result in repeated hospitalisations, along with a variety of complications as well as a poor functional outcome. There are many variables or factors that must be taken into consideration. These factors are objective elements associated with the injury and physical state of the injured patient and subjective aspects associated with the social, economic and psychological status of the patient.
The Decision Making Factors
When assessing a complex limb injury we must consider certain variables such as the injury, the patient and the hospital environment before we reach a decision whether to salvage or amputate the limb1. Firstly, we must assess the extent of the injury and check the skin, muscle, nerve, blood vessels and including the bone. As physicians we must question which interventions are relevant and will attain the best results for the patient.
The management of complex limb injuries is based on numerous factors; however it is noteworthy that at times this can be conflicting due to the lack of class one evidence. There are critical factors that have been incorporated by researchers using a scoring system to forecast unavoidable amputation. Mangled Extremity Syndrome Index (MESI) was developed by Gregory et al2 in 1985. Some major factors are considered by Gregory among colleagues by MESI, including score of injury severity; harm to integument or skin, bone, nerve, vein, and artery; adjournment in immediate treatment; age of patient; acute disease history; and presence of shock. MESS was then modified by McNamara et al 3,4 and they developed NISSSA score. NISSSA has six variables, including (N) nerve damage, (I) ischemia, (S) contamination of soft tissue, (S) injury to skeleton, (S) shock presence, and (A) age of patient.
All the above mentioned scoring system has a critical score prognostic of amputation, typically ascertained via retrospectively applying scores to patients in whom salvage was decided. Most of the investigators have conducted studies to compare precise outcomes with score predictions that provide the sensitivity and specificity and also the predictive value for all the scores. Of course, it has been showed by all the assessments that there are no any precise and accurate scoring systems in all situations. This imprecision may be partially due to considerable differences in inter-observer grouping of severe level of open limb injuries, specifically in evaluating the injury level of soft-tissue and venous, along with the ischemia degree. Even though these indices are useful, the status and condition of a patient cannot be simply summed up by a number. Moreover, these systems fail in taking factors into account associated with the institution and operating team. The major players that definitely contribute their role are the availability of resources, professionals, and the surgeon’s knowledge and experience. In 2005 the American College of Surgeons recommended that complex limb injuries involving the vascular supply should be treated within a six hour period in enjoin the maximum chance of limb salvage5.
Complex limb injuries can lead to numerous complications including amputation. Amputation should be considered when the risk of limb loss persists. Another factor is the amputation level. The primary goal in amputation is preserving the length of limb as much as possible. As an instance, less energy is consumed with lower extremities while walking on longer limbs. For this very reason, amputation below the knee is suitable to an above-knee one and similarly the treatment of amputation through the knee is suitable to doing so above the knee, specifically as different prosthetic knee systems have made amputations through-the-knee more improving and easy to fit6. Other considerations and factors, in these situations, are crucial while determining whether to go with the treatment of amputate or salvage. The resumption of pre-injury functioning may be predicted by more considerations associated with the patient.
Given the borderline status of the patient as ascertained by the predictive factors, taking other aspects into account like employment and life-style of a patient is helpful to decide the treatment. Following this comprehensive analysis of factors, the decision can be made by a surgeon. Patient expectation and satisfaction is an important variable which must be considered in the decision making process. This is evident in the study by Kreuger et al which suggests that 59% of patients were discontented at the results of the functionality after the limb salvage, so surgeons should properly advise patients who wish for a late amputation7.
Until recent times, financial conditions have not been examined deeply. It is a fact that this specific variable may become more and more crucial because of the cost awareness of managed care takes greater impact in ascertaining treatment and burdens the patient with more responsibility. The hospitalisation cost has been examined by Goldberg et al. In their research study, Goldberg et al. recruited 98 patients as the study participants, who were injured in train accidents, and 5.2 was their mean MESS for all injured limbs and 37 of the patients required instantaneous amputation of limb. $18,698 per patient was found to be the cost of hospitalisation, and on average, patients (study participants) paid only $2,261 of this total ($18,698)8. The hospital environment is also another important factor which influences the decision making process. Across the healthcare system it is known that there are different trauma capabilities of surgeons as well as various capacities available in the hospital trusts2.
The Variables affecting the Outcome
Variables associated with the social, economic, and psychological status of the patient with severe limb injured are crucial forecasters of outcome and the future quality of life. It has been reported by Francel that variables related to the patient, instead of his or her injury, are associated with a prosperous return to normal life, which was more probable for those who are under 40, highly-qualified, educated, and skilled and have white-collar employments. There are other aspects that indicate the unsuccessfulness of protracted salvage. These factors are incapability of affording a prolonged absence from their jobs, insufficient system of social assistance, and unreliability9. The Belfast Approach10 suggests that interventions such as the early shunting in complex limb injuries offers a huge benefit in terms of outcome as it decreases the requirement for fasciotomy, amputation (P: p ¼ 0.009, P: p ¼ 0.012) and hence improves the outcome for complex limb injuries.
A study by Hogendom and Van der Werken et al11 examined the quality of life of patients who were managed with reconstructive surgery vs. Amputation following a grade three open tibia fractures. They concluded that patients in the limb salvage group had additional surgeries and suffered further complications. There are additional studies which support the idea of belated amputation resulting in worse functional outcome vs. primary amputation12,13.
However if we examine the findings from the LEAP study group, using the SIP they found that patients who had undergone amputation had more severe injuries but did not differ from those who underwent limb salvage. They also discovered that there were significant factors which influenced a meagre outcome such as low household income, rehospitalisation, no insurance, poor social network and involvement in the compensation process with the legal system1,6.
The Evidence based Orthopaedic Working group found that there was no considerable difference in the functional outcome up to a period of seven years. Additionally, a study by Penn – Barwell investigated medium term outcomes following limb salvage surgery after tibia fractures and compared results with trans tibial amputees and found that there was no respective difference in quality of life whilst measuring with the SF- 36 tool15.
Whether to prefer the treatment through amputation or salvage of seriously injured limb is in fact and has been found to be one of the most difficult decisions. As these decisions are rarely easy to be made, a majority of the considerations must be taken into account, comprising objective variables associate with the level of injury and physical condition of a patient and subjective variables associated with the social, economic, and psychological status of a patient.
Conflict of Interest:
There are no conflicts of interest
Ahmeda Ali, Queen Mary University London, Mile End Rd, London E1 4NS, UK
1. Rossiter N, Higgins T, Pallister I. (ii) The mangled extremity: limb salvage versus amputation. Orthopaedics and Trauma. 2014;28(3):137-140.
2. Gregory R, Gould R, Peclet M, Wagner J, Gilbert D, Wheeler J. The Mangled Extremity Syndrome (M.E.S.). The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care. 1985;25(12):1147-1150
3. Feliciano D, Moore E, West M, Moore F, Davis J, Cocanour C. Western Trauma Association Critical Decisions in Trauma. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2013;75(3):391-397.
4. McNamara M, Heckman J, Corley F. Severe Open Fractures of the Lower Extremity. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 1994;8(2):81-87.
5. Management of Complex Extremity Trauma. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. 2005;
6. Bosse M, MacKenzie E, Kellam J, Burgess A, Webb L, Swiontkowski M. An Analysis of Outcomes of Reconstruction or Amputation after Leg-Threatening Injuries. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;347 (24):1924-1931.
7. Krueger C, Rivera J, Tennent D, Sheean A, Stinner D, Wenke J. Late amputation may not reduce complications or improve mental health in combat-related, lower extremity limb salvage patients. Injury. 2015; 46 (8):1527-1532.
8. Goldberg B, Lindsey R, Mootha R. Train accidents involving pedestrians, motor vehicles, and motorcycles. American journal of orthopedics (Belle Mead, NJ). 1998;27(4):315-320.
9. Francel T, Vander Kolk C, Hoopes J, Manson P, Yaremchuk M. Microvascular Soft-Tissue Transplantation for Reconstruction of Acute Open Tibial Fractures. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1992; 89(3):478-487.
10. Barros D'Sa A, Harkin D, Blair P, Hood J, McIlrath E. The Belfast Approach to Managing Complex Lower Limb Vascular Injuries. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2006;32(3):246-256.
11. Hoogendoorn J, van der Werken C. Grade III open tibial fractures. Injury. 2001;32(4):329-334.
12. Bondurant F, Cotler H, Buckle R, Miller – Crotchett P, Browner B. The Medical and Economic Impact of Severely Injured Lower Extremities. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care. 1988;28(8):1270-1273.
13. Georgiadis G, Behrens F, Joyce M, Earle A. End Results After Severe Open Tibial Fractures Treated by Limb Salvage or Early Below Knee Amputation. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 1993;6 (4):507.
14. Mackenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Kellam JF, Burgess AR, Webb LX. Characterisation of patients with high energy lower extremity trauma. 2000;(14)455-466.
15. Penn – Barwell JG, Myatt RW, Bennett PM. Medium term outcomes following limb salvage for severe open tibia fracture are similar to trans - tibial amputation. Injury, Int. J Care Injured 2015;(46)288-291.