Outcomes in Drainage Ankle Disarticulation vs Guillotine Transtibial Amputation in the Staged Approach to Below-Knee Amputation.

Alissa M Mayer, Nicole K Cates, Eshetu Tefera, Kevin K Ragothaman, Kenneth L Fan, Karen K Evans, John S Steinberg, Christopher E Attinger
{"title":"Outcomes in Drainage Ankle Disarticulation vs Guillotine Transtibial Amputation in the Staged Approach to Below-Knee Amputation.","authors":"Alissa M Mayer, Nicole K Cates, Eshetu Tefera, Kevin K Ragothaman, Kenneth L Fan, Karen K Evans, John S Steinberg, Christopher E Attinger","doi":"10.1177/19386400241253880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A transtibial amputation is the traditional primary staged amputation for source control in the setting of non-salvageable lower extremity infection, trauma, or avascularity prior to progression to proximal amputation. The primary aim of the study is to compare preoperative risk factors and postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent transtibial amputation versus ankle disarticulation in staged amputations. A retrospective review of 152 patients that underwent staged below the knee amputation were compared between those that primarily underwent transtibial amputation (N = 70) versus ankle disarticulation (N = 82). The mean follow-up for all 152 patients was 2.1 years (range = 0.04-7.9 years). The odds of incisional healing were 3.2 times higher for patients with guillotine amputation compared to patients with ankle disarticulation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.437-7.057). The odds of postoperative infection is 7.4 times higher with ankle disarticulation compared to patients with guillotine amputation (OR = 7.345, 95% CI = 1.505-35.834). There were improved outcomes in patients that underwent staged below the knee amputation with primarily guillotine transtibial amputation compared to primarily ankle disarticulation. Ankle disarticulation should be reserved for more distal infections, to allow for adequate infectious control, in the aims of decreasing postoperative infection and improving incisional healing rates.<b>Levels of Evidence:</b> <i>3, Retrospective study</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":" ","pages":"19386400241253880"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle specialist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400241253880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A transtibial amputation is the traditional primary staged amputation for source control in the setting of non-salvageable lower extremity infection, trauma, or avascularity prior to progression to proximal amputation. The primary aim of the study is to compare preoperative risk factors and postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent transtibial amputation versus ankle disarticulation in staged amputations. A retrospective review of 152 patients that underwent staged below the knee amputation were compared between those that primarily underwent transtibial amputation (N = 70) versus ankle disarticulation (N = 82). The mean follow-up for all 152 patients was 2.1 years (range = 0.04-7.9 years). The odds of incisional healing were 3.2 times higher for patients with guillotine amputation compared to patients with ankle disarticulation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.437-7.057). The odds of postoperative infection is 7.4 times higher with ankle disarticulation compared to patients with guillotine amputation (OR = 7.345, 95% CI = 1.505-35.834). There were improved outcomes in patients that underwent staged below the knee amputation with primarily guillotine transtibial amputation compared to primarily ankle disarticulation. Ankle disarticulation should be reserved for more distal infections, to allow for adequate infectious control, in the aims of decreasing postoperative infection and improving incisional healing rates.Levels of Evidence: 3, Retrospective study.

引流式踝关节离断术与断头台经胫骨截肢术在膝下截肢分阶段治疗中的疗效对比。
经胫骨截肢是传统的主要分期截肢术,用于在下肢感染、创伤或血管闭塞无法挽救的情况下进行源头控制,然后再进行近端截肢。该研究的主要目的是比较经胫骨截肢与踝关节离断分期截肢患者的术前风险因素和术后效果。该研究对152名接受膝下分期截肢的患者进行了回顾性研究,比较了主要接受经胫骨截肢(70人)和踝关节离断术(82人)的患者。所有152名患者的平均随访时间为2.1年(范围=0.04-7.9年)。与踝关节离断术相比,断头台截肢患者切口愈合的几率要高出3.2倍(几率比[OR] = 3.2,95% 置信区间[CI] = 1.437-7.057)。踝关节离断术患者术后感染的几率是断头台截肢患者的 7.4 倍(OR = 7.345,95% CI = 1.505-35.834)。与主要采用踝关节离断术相比,主要采用断头台经胫骨截肢术的膝下分期截肢患者的预后更好。为了减少术后感染并提高切口愈合率,踝关节离断术应保留给更远端感染的患者,以便进行充分的感染控制:3,回顾性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信