Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Practice

Should severely injured legs be saved or amputated?

Mohit Bhandari
CMAJ June 10, 2003 168 (12) 1570;
Mohit Bhandari
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, Kellam JF, Burgess AR, Webb LX, Swiontkowski MF, et al. An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation of leg-threatening injuries. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1924-31.

Background: Recent surgical advancements have enabled surgeons to develop reconstructive protocols to salvage severely injured legs. However, some investigators continue to advocate early limb amputation with prosthetic fitting to optimize functional outcome. To date, evidence in support of either treatment has been limited to anecdote and retrospective case series.1,2

Question: Among patients with leg-threatening injuries, is there a difference in functional outcomes between those who undergo early amputation and prosthetic fitting and those who undergo limb reconstruction?

Design: This multicentre, prospective, observational study, conducted in the United States between March 1994 and June 1997, enrolled 601 patients aged 16–69 years with complicated fractures and other severe injuries below the distal femur. Exclusion criteria were decreased level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale score < 15), spinal cord deficits, previous amputation, third-degree burns, psychiatric disorders, transfer to treatment centre more than 24 hours after injury, active military duty or inability to speak English or Spanish. The primary outcome measure was the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) at 2 years. The SIP is a multidimensional measure of self-reported health status, consisting of 136 items in 12 domains of function; scores range from 0 to 100 points, with scores over 10 indicating severe disability. Secondary outcomes included readmission to hospital because of a major complication and return to work. Patient assignment to treatment group was based most often on the operating surgeon's judgement. The SIP at 2 years was therefore adjusted for potentially important confounding variables, including 17 patient characteristics and 5 injury characteristics. Longitudinal multivariate regression analysis was used to assess associations between treatment and outcomes over 2 years, after adjustment for patient and injury characteristics.

Results: Of the 601 enrolled patients, 56 were excluded (24 were lost to follow up, and 32 had bilateral injuries). Of the remaining 545 patients, 161 underwent early amputation and 384 underwent limb reconstruction. Patients who had an amputation had significantly more severe injuries than those who had their limbs reconstructed. At 2 years, 460 patients completed the SIP questionnaires. The adjusted SIP scores did not differ significantly between the amputation and reconstruction groups (12.0 v. 11.7 respectively). However, patients who underwent reconstruction were significantly more likely than those who underwent amputation to be readmitted to hospital (47.6% v. 33.9%; p = 0.002). The proportion of patients who had returned to work at 2 years did not differ significantly (53.0% in the amputation group and 49.4% in the reconstruction group; p = 0.48). Predictors of a poorer SIP score included readmission to hospital because of a major complication, low education level, nonwhite race, poverty, lack of private health insurance, poor social support network, low self-efficacy (the patient's confidence in being able to resume life activities), smoking and involvement in disability-compensation litigation.

Commentary: This is the first large, prospective study of outcomes following amputation or reconstruction in patients with severe limb injuries. At 2 years, functional outcomes after amputation were similar to those after reconstruction. Not surprisingly, patients who underwent reconstruction were more likely to be readmitted because of a major complication. These findings support those from earlier, smaller studies.1,2 The authors adjusted for the important differences in prognostic factors between the groups. However, statistical adjustment cannot transform quasi-experimental studies into randomized trials. Therefore, the inferences from the current study are limited by the same biases inherent to all observational studies. The generalizability of these results beyond level 1 trauma centres is also unknown. Limb reconstruction requires an experienced and dedicated team of physicians across multiple subspecialties, most often available in large, university-based settings. The authors reported nonsignificant differences between the treatment groups in the proportion of patients who had returned to work at 2 years; however, their analysis is underpowered if their a priori hypothesis that amputation would result in overall better outcomes is true.

Implications for practice: Evidence from this high-quality study suggests that outcomes following amputation are similar to those following reconstruction. Treatment decisions should therefore be based on factors such as the expertise of the surgical team, the available hospital infrastructure and the patients' values and preferences. Clinicians should try to ensure that important decisions remain as consistent as possible with the values and preferences of informed patients.3

Mohit Bhandari Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Division of Orthopaedic Surgery McMaster University Hamilton, Ont.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Georgiadis GM, Behrens FF, Joyce MJ, Earle AS, Simmons AL. Open tibial fractures with severe soft-tissue loss. Limb salvage compared with below-the-knee amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:1431-41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Hertel R, Strebel N, Ganz R.Amputation versus reconstruction in traumatic defects of the leg: outcome and costs. J Orthop Trauma 1996;10:223-9.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision. JAMA 1990;263:441-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 168, Issue 12
10 Jun 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Should severely injured legs be saved or amputated?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Should severely injured legs be saved or amputated?
Mohit Bhandari
CMAJ Jun 2003, 168 (12) 1570;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Should severely injured legs be saved or amputated?
Mohit Bhandari
CMAJ Jun 2003, 168 (12) 1570;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Practice

  • SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy
  • Infantile perianal pyramidal protrusion
  • Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Show more Practice

In the Literature

  • Does the choice of β-blocker affect outcome in chronic heart failure?
  • Bisphosphonates and skeletal morbidity in patients with metastatic cancer
  • ACE inhibition in stable coronary artery disease
Show more In the Literature

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Surgery: orthopedic

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire