Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27178157›Full record

ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2016

[Limb salvage and amputation after trauma : Decision criteria and management algorithm].

C Krettek, A Lerner, P Giannoudis, C Willy, C W Müller

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C KrettekUnfallchirurgische Klinik, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. Krettek.Christian@mh-hannover.de.
A LernerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Ziv Medical Center, Rambam st. Zefat, 13100, Zefat, Israel.
P GiannoudisDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
C WillyAbteilung Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Septisch-Rekonstruktive Chirurgie, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin, Scharnhorststr. 13, 10115, Berlin, Deutschland.
C W MüllerUnfallchirurgische Klinik, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical decision-making process for patients with severe trauma of the extremities for primary amputation or to initiate extensive reconstructive measures for limb salvage in the best interests of the patient can be complex and difficult. The many factors influencing the decision-making process, such as local anatomical, pathomechanical, physiological, psychosocial and general factors are demonstrated and discussed. In the past, the role of scores supporting the decision-making process for amputation or limb salvage has been overestimated. In the LEAP study it could clearly be demonstrated that none of the sometimes highly complex scores could fulfill the expectations to predict successful limb salvage or the need for amputation. In this article it is shown that initiators and authors of scores achieved much higher sensitivity and specificity in the inaugural studies compared to the standardized and controlled conditions used in the LEAP study. For a long time, a lack of feeling in the feet was considered a safe and reliable criterion for amputation but the LEAP study has made a substantial contribution to demythologizing this as a lead symptom. Patients with severe trauma of the ankle or foot requiring a free flap or ankle arthrodesis have a significantly worse outcome compared to patients with a below knee amputation. Taking all these influencing factors into consideration, a comprehensive algorithm is presented that facilitates, strengthens and standardizes decision-making for amputation or limb salvage. This algorithm consists of four modules: 1) decision-making, 2) emergency treatment, 3) definitive treatment and 4) fine tuning. In the decision-making module not only local and general injury severity are addressed but the expected result, the general condition, comorbidities, compliance and the will of the patient are also included.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAmputation, SurgicalClinical Decision-MakingHumansLeg InjuriesPrevalenceRisk FactorsSalvage TherapyTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesAmputationDecision-makingExtremitiesLimb salvagePolytraumaScores

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.