Long-Term Health Outcomes of Limb Salvage Compared with Amputation for Combat-Related Trauma.

BACKGROUND: There are little long-term health data, particularly in terms of body composition and development of metabolic syndromes, to help surgeons to guide the decision between limb salvage and amputation in patients with limb-threatening trauma. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term health outcomes after high-energy lower-extremity trauma between patients who underwent attempted flap-based limb salvage or amputation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of servicemembers with a minimum 10-year follow-up who underwent flap-based limb salvage followed by unilateral amputation or continued limb salvage after combat-related, lower-extremity trauma between 2005 and 2011. Patient demographic characteristics, injury characteristics, and health outcomes including body mass index (BMI) and development of metabolic disease (e.g., hyperlipidemia, hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes) were compared between treatment cohorts. Adjusted BMIs were calculated for the amputation cohort to account for lost surface area. We performed multivariable and propensity score analysis to determine the likelihood of developing obesity or metabolic disease. RESULTS: In this study, 110 patients had available long-term follow-up (mean, 12.2 years) from the time of the injury. Fifty-six patients underwent limb salvage and 54 patients underwent unilateral amputation. There was no difference in preinjury BMI (p = 0.30). After adjusting for limb loss, the amputation cohort had a trend toward higher BMIs at ≥1 years after the injury, a higher rate of obesity, and a greater increase in BMI from baseline after the injury. The development of metabolic comorbidities was common after both amputation (23 [43%] of 54) and limb salvage (27 [48%] of 56). With the numbers available, we were unable to demonstrate a difference in risk for the development of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, heart disease, or any comorbidity other than obesity (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Amputations may be medically necessary and may decrease pain, improve mobility, and/or expedite return to activity compared with limb salvage after similar injuries. However, limb loss may negatively impact metabolic regulation and may contribute to a higher risk of obesity despite beneficial effects on mobility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Practice Patterns and Pain Outcomes for Targeted Muscle Reinnervation: An Informed Approach to Targeted Muscle Reinnervation Use in the Acute Amputation Setting.

BACKGROUND: Targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and regenerative peripheral nerve interface (RPNI) procedures have been shown to improve patient-reported outcomes for the treatment of symptomatic neuromas after amputation; however, the specific indications and comparative outcomes of each are unclear. The primary research questions were what complement of nerves most frequently requires secondary pain intervention after conventional amputation, whether this information can guide the focused application of TMR and RPNI to the primary amputation setting, and how the outcomes compare in both settings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of records for patients who had undergone lower-extremity TMR and/or RPNI at our institution. Eighty-seven procedures were performed: 59 for the secondary treatment of symptomatic neuroma pain after amputation and 28 for primary prophylaxis during amputation. We reviewed records for the amputation level, TMR and/or RPNI timing, pain scores, patient-reported resolution of nerve-related symptoms, and complications or revisions. We evaluated the relationship between the amputation level and the frequency with which each transected nerve required neurologic intervention for pain symptoms. RESULTS: The mean pain score decreased after delayed TMR or RPNI procedures from 4.3 points to 1.7 points (p < 0.001), and the mean final pain score (and standard deviation) was 1.0 ± 1.9 points at the time of follow-up for acute procedures. Symptom resolution was achieved in 92% of patients. The sciatic nerve most commonly required intervention for symptomatic neuroma above the knee, and the tibial nerve and common or superficial peroneal nerve were most problematic following transtibial amputation. None of our patients required a revision pain treatment procedure after primary TMR targeting these commonly symptomatic nerves. Failure to address the tibial nerve during a delayed procedure was associated with an increased risk of unsuccessful TMR, resulting in a revision surgical procedure (odds ratio, 26 [95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 368]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There is a consistent pattern of symptomatic nerves that require secondary surgical intervention for the management of pain after amputation. TMR and RPNI were translated to the primary amputation setting by using this predictable pattern to devise a surgical strategy that prevents symptomatic neuroma pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.