BACKGROUND: Survival implications of achieving different grades of physical independence after lower extremity amputation are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To identify thresholds of physical independence achievement associated with improved 6-month survival and to identify and compare other risk factors after removing the influence of the grade achieved. DESIGN: Data were combined from 8 administrative databases. Grade was measured on the basis of 13 individual self-care and mobility activities measured at inpatient rehabilitation discharge. SETTING: Ninety-nine US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. PATIENTS: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study of 2616 veterans who underwent lower extremity amputation and subsequent inpatient rehabilitation between October 1, 2002, and September 30, 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cumulative 6-month survival after rehabilitation discharge. RESULTS: The 6-month survival rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) for those at grade 1 (total assistance) was 73.5% (70.5%-76.2%). The achievement of grade 2 (maximal assistance) led to the largest incremental improvement in prognosis with survival increasing to 91.1% (95% CI, 85.6%-94.5%). In amputees who remained at grade 1, the 30-day hazards ratio for survival compared with grade 6 (independent) was 43.9 (95% CI, 10.8-278.2), sharply decreasing with time. Whereas metastatic cancer and hemodialysis remained significantly associated with reduced survival (both P < or = .001), anatomical amputation level was not significant when rehabilitation discharge grade and other diagnostic conditions were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Even a small improvement to grade 2 in the most severely impaired amputees resulted in better 6-month survival. Health care systems must plan appropriate interdisciplinary treatment strategies for both medical and functional issues after amputation.
BACKGROUND: Survival implications of achieving different grades of physical independence after lower extremity amputation are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To identify thresholds of physical independence achievement associated with improved 6-month survival and to identify and compare other risk factors after removing the influence of the grade achieved. DESIGN: Data were combined from 8 administrative databases. Grade was measured on the basis of 13 individual self-care and mobility activities measured at inpatient rehabilitation discharge. SETTING: Ninety-nine US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. PATIENTS: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study of 2616 veterans who underwent lower extremity amputation and subsequent inpatient rehabilitation between October 1, 2002, and September 30, 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cumulative 6-month survival after rehabilitation discharge. RESULTS: The 6-month survival rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) for those at grade 1 (total assistance) was 73.5% (70.5%-76.2%). The achievement of grade 2 (maximal assistance) led to the largest incremental improvement in prognosis with survival increasing to 91.1% (95% CI, 85.6%-94.5%). In amputees who remained at grade 1, the 30-day hazards ratio for survival compared with grade 6 (independent) was 43.9 (95% CI, 10.8-278.2), sharply decreasing with time. Whereas metastatic cancer and hemodialysis remained significantly associated with reduced survival (both P < or = .001), anatomical amputation level was not significant when rehabilitation discharge grade and other diagnostic conditions were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Even a small improvement to grade 2 in the most severely impaired amputees resulted in better 6-month survival. Health care systems must plan appropriate interdisciplinary treatment strategies for both medical and functional issues after amputation.
Authors: J Feinglass; W H Pearce; G J Martin; J Gibbs; D Cowper; M Sorensen; W G Henderson; J Daley; S Khuri Journal: Surgery Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; Richard N Ross; Roger Fiedler; Carl V Granger; Greg Maislin Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Mark R Nehler; Joseph R Coll; William R Hiatt; Judith G Regensteiner; Gabriel T Schnickel; William A Klenke; Pam K Strecker; Michelle W Anderson; Darrell N Jones; Thomas A Whitehill; Shevie Moskowitz; William C Krupski Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Sharon K Inouye; Sidney T Bogardus; Gail Vitagliano; Mayur M Desai; Christianna S Williams; Jacqueline N Grady; Jeanne D Scinto Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Tanneke Schoppen; Annemarijke Boonstra; Johan W Groothoff; Jaap de Vries; Ludwig N Göeken; Willem H Eisma Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; Dawei Xie; Qiang Pan; Jibby E Kurichi; Debra Saliba; Joel Streim Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; John T Henry-Sánchez; Jibby E Kurichi; Qiang Pan; Dawei Xie; Debra Saliba; Zi Zhang; Joel E Streim Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; Dawei Xie; Qiang Pan; Jibby E Kurichi; Zi Zhang; Debra Saliba; John T Henry-Sánchez; Joel Streim Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mark R Zonfrillo; Dennis R Durbin; Flaura K Winston; Huaqing Zhao; Margaret G Stineman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jibby E Kurichi; Diane Cowper Ripley; Dawei Xie; Pui L Kwong; Barbara E Bates; Margaret G Stineman Journal: PM R Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: John T Henry-Sánchez; Jibby E Kurichi; Dawei Xie; Qiang Pan; Margaret G Stineman Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.159