Multiple High-Energy Open Injuries in the Same Limb: Comparison of Outcomes Between Salvage and Amputation Groups.

AIM: To analyze the functional outcomes between limb salvage and amputation patients who had multiple open injuries in the same lower limb. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational study analyzed 21 patients who were admitted with multiple open injuries in the same lower limb between January 2012 and December 2015 in our unit. Twelve patients underwent limb salvage and nine patients underwent amputation. The total number of surgeries, duration of hospital stays, ICU admission, complications, time to return to work and costs of inpatient treatment were analyzed. The functional outcome was assessed by using the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) in both groups, SF-12 score was done for both groups and amputation specific scoring was done by using locomotors capabilities index (LCI). RESULTS: The LEFS was lower in salvage group than amputation group. The SF-12 score was close to normal population in the amputation group and was higher than salvage group. The duration of hospital stays, total number of surgeries and the costs of inpatient admission were higher in salvage group. The time to return to work was earlier in amputation group. Sixty-seven percentage of patients in the salvage group developed complications. CONCLUSION: The functional outcome and SF-12 score was better in amputation group. Patients who had amputation returned to work earlier, had smaller number of secondary hospitalization and has less complications and incurred less expenditure for treatment. The treatment decision should be periodically reviewed when an initial choice of salvage is made. Amputation must be looked at as a treatment for early rehabilitation.

Melioidosis of the Musculoskeletal System.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies indicate that India is an endemic region for Burkholderia pseudomallei infection. We aimed to describe the clinical presentation of B. pseudomallei infection of the musculoskeletal system and summarise the various treatment modalities used in our clinical practice. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with confirmed microbiological diagnosis of B. pseudomallei infection involving the musculoskeletal system treated from January 2007 to December 2016 with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. A retrospective review of medical records was carried out and patients' demographic data, co-morbidities, clinical presentation, and details of medical and surgical treatment were documented. RESULTS: Of 342 patients diagnosed with B. pseudomallei infection, 37 (9.2%) had musculoskeletal involvement; 26 patients (23 males) followed up for at least a year were included in the study. Four patients (15%) had multisystem involvement and 10 (37%) had multiple musculoskeletal foci of infection; 15 patients (58%) had osteomyelitis, 10 (38%) had septic arthritis with or without osteomyelitis, and 1 patient (4%) presented with only soft tissue abscess. All patients required surgical intervention in addition to medical management. Surgical treatment varied from soft tissue abscess drainage, arthrotomy for septic arthritis, decompression and curettage for osteomyelitis, and/or use of antibiotic (meropenem or ceftazidime)-loaded polymethylmethacrylate bone cement for local drug delivery. At final follow-up (average: 37 months, range: 12-120), all patients were disease free. CONCLUSION: We found the rate of musculoskeletal involvement in B. pseudomallei infection to be 9.2%. Appropriate surgical treatment in addition to medical management resulted in resolution of disease in all our patients.