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.