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。

Alissa M Mayer, Nicole K Cates, Eshetu Tefera, Kevin K Ragothaman, Kenneth L Fan, Karen K Evans, John S Steinberg, Christopher E Attinger
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outcomes in Drainage Ankle Disarticulation vs Guillotine Transtibial Amputation in the Staged Approach to Below-Knee Amputation.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes for First Tarsometatarsal Arthrodesis Using an Intramedullary Nail for Hallux Valgus Deformity A Consecutive Case Series. Survey of Utilization of Weightbearing Computed Tomography Within AOFAS Membership. Association Between Pronation External Rotation IV Fracture Pattern and Regional Bone Density. The Wait Time for Surgery Following Injury Affects Functional Outcomes and Complications After an Ankle Fracture: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Study, the TRON Study. Defining Operative Indications in Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1