INTRODUCTION: Micro- or macroreplantation is classified depending on the level of amputation, distal or proximal to the wrist. This study was performed to review our experience in macroreplantation of the upper extremity with special attention to technical considerations and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1990 and December 2010, 11 patients with a complete amputation of the upper extremity proximal to the wrist were referred for replantations to our department. The patients, one woman and ten men, had a mean age of 43.4 ± 18.2 years (range 19-76 years). There were two elbow, two proximal forearm, four mid-forearm, and three distal forearm amputations. The mechanism of injury was crush in four, crush-avulsion in five and guillotine amputation in two patients. The Chen classification was used to assess the postoperative outcomes. The mean follow-up after macroreplantation was 7.5 ± 6.3 years (range 2-21 years). RESULTS: All but one were successfully replanted and regained limb function: Chen I in four cases (36 %), Chen II in three cases (27 %), Chen III in two cases (18 %), and Chen IV in one patient (9 %). We discuss the steps of the macroreplantation technique, the need to minimize ischemic time and the risk of ischemia reperfusion injuries. CONCLUSION: Thanks to improvements in technique, the indications for limb preservation after amputation can be expanded. However, because of their rarity, replantations should be performed at specialist replantation centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
INTRODUCTION: Micro- or macroreplantation is classified depending on the level of amputation, distal or proximal to the wrist. This study was performed to review our experience in macroreplantation of the upper extremity with special attention to technical considerations and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1990 and December 2010, 11 patients with a complete amputation of the upper extremity proximal to the wrist were referred for replantations to our department. The patients, one woman and ten men, had a mean age of 43.4 ± 18.2 years (range 19-76 years). There were two elbow, two proximal forearm, four mid-forearm, and three distal forearm amputations. The mechanism of injury was crush in four, crush-avulsion in five and guillotine amputation in two patients. The Chen classification was used to assess the postoperative outcomes. The mean follow-up after macroreplantation was 7.5 ± 6.3 years (range 2-21 years). RESULTS: All but one were successfully replanted and regained limb function: Chen I in four cases (36 %), Chen II in three cases (27 %), Chen III in two cases (18 %), and Chen IV in one patient (9 %). We discuss the steps of the macroreplantation technique, the need to minimize ischemic time and the risk of ischemia reperfusion injuries. CONCLUSION: Thanks to improvements in technique, the indications for limb preservation after amputation can be expanded. However, because of their rarity, replantations should be performed at specialist replantation centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.