PURPOSE: Primary revision amputation is the most common treatment method for traumatic digit amputations in the United States. Few studies have reported secondary revision rates after primary revision amputation. The primary aim of our study was to identify risk factors for secondary revision within 1 year of the index procedure. Secondarily, we describe the incidence and timing of complications requiring secondary revision. METHODS: Our institution's emergency department (ED) database was reviewed for traumatic digit amputations over a 6-year period. Patients were reviewed for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, site of treatment (ED versus operating room), and complications requiring secondary revision. Conditional Cox Proportional Hazard regression was used to model hazard of revision within 1 year of index procedure relative to site of initial management, mechanism of injury, injury characteristics, and patient demographics. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-seven patients with 677 digits were managed with primary revision amputation. Five hundred and eighty-six digits (86.6%) were revised in the ED, and 91 (13.4%) in the operating room. Ninety-one digits required secondary revision, including 83 within 1 year. No increased risk of secondary revision amputation within 1 year of the index procedure was observed for patients treated in the ED compared with the operating room. Relative to crush injuries, bite and sharp laceration amputations had 4.8 times and 2.6 times increased risk of secondary revision, respectively. The index finger had a 5.3-fold increased risk of revision with the thumb as the reference digit. Work-related injuries had a 1.9-fold increased risk of secondary revision compared with non-work-related injuries. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found indicating that traumatic digit amputations primarily revised in the ED had an increased risk of secondary revision. Patients may be counseled on the risk of secondary procedures based on the mechanism of injury, injury characteristics and demographics, as well as the timing of complications. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
PURPOSE: Primary revision amputation is the most common treatment method for traumatic digit amputations in the United States. Few studies have reported secondary revision rates after primary revision amputation. The primary aim of our study was to identify risk factors for secondary revision within 1 year of the index procedure. Secondarily, we describe the incidence and timing of complications requiring secondary revision. METHODS: Our institution's emergency department (ED) database was reviewed for traumatic digit amputations over a 6-year period. Patients were reviewed for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, site of treatment (ED versus operating room), and complications requiring secondary revision. Conditional Cox Proportional Hazard regression was used to model hazard of revision within 1 year of index procedure relative to site of initial management, mechanism of injury, injury characteristics, and patient demographics. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-seven patients with 677 digits were managed with primary revision amputation. Five hundred and eighty-six digits (86.6%) were revised in the ED, and 91 (13.4%) in the operating room. Ninety-one digits required secondary revision, including 83 within 1 year. No increased risk of secondary revision amputation within 1 year of the index procedure was observed for patients treated in the ED compared with the operating room. Relative to crush injuries, bite and sharp laceration amputations had 4.8 times and 2.6 times increased risk of secondary revision, respectively. The index finger had a 5.3-fold increased risk of revision with the thumb as the reference digit. Work-related injuries had a 1.9-fold increased risk of secondary revision compared with non-work-related injuries. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found indicating that traumatic digit amputations primarily revised in the ED had an increased risk of secondary revision. Patients may be counseled on the risk of secondary procedures based on the mechanism of injury, injury characteristics and demographics, as well as the timing of complications. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.