Scott M Tintle1, Scott B Shawen, Jonathan A Forsberg, Donald A Gajewski, John J Keeling, Romney C Andersen, Benjamin K Potter. 1. *Department of Orthopaedics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; †Department of Surgery, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; and ‡Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, San Antonio Military Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Complication rates leading to reoperation after trauma-related amputations remain ill defined in the literature. We sought to identify and quantify the indications for reoperation in our combat-injured patients. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients. SETTING: Tertiary Military Medical Center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Combat-wounded personnel sustaining 300 major lower extremity amputations from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom from 2005 to 2009. INTERVENTION: We performed a retrospective analysis of injury and treatment-related data, complications, and revision of amputation data. Prerevision and postrevision outcome measures were identified for all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was the reoperation on an amputation after a previous definitive closure. Secondary outcome measures included ambulatory status, prosthesis use, medication use, and return to duty status. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 23 months (interquartile range: 16-32), 156 limbs required reoperation leading to a 53% overall reoperation rate. Ninety-one limbs had 1 indication for reoperation, whereas 65 limbs had more than 1 indication for reoperation. There were a total of 261 distinct indications for reoperation leading to a total of 465 additional surgical procedures. Repeat surgery was performed semiurgently for postoperative wound infection (27%) and sterile wound dehiscence/wound breakdown (4%). Revision amputation surgery was also performed electively for persistently symptomatic residual limbs due to the following indications: symptomatic heterotopic ossification (24%), neuromas (11%), scar revision (8%), and myodesis failure (6%). Transtibial amputations were more likely than transfemoral amputations to be revised due to symptomatic neuromata (P = 0.004; odds ratio [OR] = 3.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.45-9.22). Knee disarticulations were less likely to require reoperation when compared with all other amputation levels (P = 0.0002; OR = 7.6; 95% CI = 2.2-21.4). CONCLUSIONS: In our patient population, reoperation to address urgent surgical complications was consistent with previous reports on trauma-related amputations. Additionally, persistently symptomatic residual limbs were common and reoperation to address the pathology was associated with an improvement in ambulatory status and led to a decreased dependence on pain medications.
OBJECTIVE: Complication rates leading to reoperation after trauma-related amputations remain ill defined in the literature. We sought to identify and quantify the indications for reoperation in our combat-injured patients. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients. SETTING: Tertiary Military Medical Center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Combat-wounded personnel sustaining 300 major lower extremity amputations from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom from 2005 to 2009. INTERVENTION: We performed a retrospective analysis of injury and treatment-related data, complications, and revision of amputation data. Prerevision and postrevision outcome measures were identified for all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was the reoperation on an amputation after a previous definitive closure. Secondary outcome measures included ambulatory status, prosthesis use, medication use, and return to duty status. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 23 months (interquartile range: 16-32), 156 limbs required reoperation leading to a 53% overall reoperation rate. Ninety-one limbs had 1 indication for reoperation, whereas 65 limbs had more than 1 indication for reoperation. There were a total of 261 distinct indications for reoperation leading to a total of 465 additional surgical procedures. Repeat surgery was performed semiurgently for postoperative wound infection (27%) and sterile wound dehiscence/wound breakdown (4%). Revision amputation surgery was also performed electively for persistently symptomatic residual limbs due to the following indications: symptomatic heterotopic ossification (24%), neuromas (11%), scar revision (8%), and myodesis failure (6%). Transtibial amputations were more likely than transfemoral amputations to be revised due to symptomatic neuromata (P = 0.004; odds ratio [OR] = 3.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.45-9.22). Knee disarticulations were less likely to require reoperation when compared with all other amputation levels (P = 0.0002; OR = 7.6; 95% CI = 2.2-21.4). CONCLUSIONS: In our patient population, reoperation to address urgent surgical complications was consistent with previous reports on trauma-related amputations. Additionally, persistently symptomatic residual limbs were common and reoperation to address the pathology was associated with an improvement in ambulatory status and led to a decreased dependence on pain medications.
Authors: Gabriel J Pavey; Ammar T Qureshi; Donald N Hope; Rebecca L Pavlicek; Benjamin K Potter; Jonathan A Forsberg; Thomas A Davis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Gabriel J Pavey; Peter M Formby; Benjamin W Hoyt; Scott C Wagner; Jonathan A Forsberg; Benjamin K Potter Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: David R Tribble; Ping Li; Tyler E Warkentien; Bradley A Lloyd; Elizabeth R Schnaubelt; Anuradha Ganesan; William Bradley; Deepak Aggarwal; M Leigh Carson; Amy C Weintrob; Clinton K Murray Journal: Mil Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Gabriel J Pavey; Ammar T Qureshi; Allison M Tomasino; Cary L Honnold; Danett K Bishop; Shailesh Agarwal; Shawn Loder; Benjamin Levi; Maurizio Pacifici; Masahiro Iwamoto; Benjamin K Potter; Thomas A Davis; Jonathan A Forsberg Journal: Bone Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Ammar T Qureshi; Devaveena Dey; Erin M Sanders; Jonathan G Seavey; Allison M Tomasino; Kaitlyn Moss; Benjamin Wheatley; David Cholok; Shawn Loder; John Li; Benjamin Levi; Thomas A Davis Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: David R Tribble; Margot R Krauss; Clinton K Murray; Tyler E Warkentien; Bradley A Lloyd; Anuradha Ganesan; Lauren Greenberg; Jiahong Xu; Ping Li; M Leigh Carson; William Bradley; Amy C Weintrob Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.150