ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Lower limb amputation by emergency medical technicians: a case report from scene.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAgricultural trauma resulting from machinery poses unique challenges due to severe injuries, delayed access to emergency care in rural areas, and complex extrication procedures. This case study describes the prehospital management and subsequent field amputation of a lower limb performed by Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). CASE PRESENTATION: A 45-year-old male tractor driver sustained extensive lower-limb entrapment in a rotary agricultural device, resulting in severe injuries to the tibia, fibula, and femur. Upon arrival, the EMTs observed bystanders attempting to remove the blades of the machinery. They began caring for the patient according to the XABCDE protocol. The patient experienced severe pain; the EMTs attempted to relieve it, but their efforts were ineffective. Given that extrication of the mangled foot would be time-consuming, the EMTs decided to free the patient by amputating the remaining limb segment. Simultaneously, they requested the helicopter ambulance. However, because of the long time for the helicopter to arrive at the scene, they decided to transport the patient via ground ambulance. They initiated intravenous fluid therapy and notified the receiving hospital of the need for a potential blood transfusion. Upon arrival at the hospital, the patient presented with a decreased level of consciousness.
conclusionsThis case revealed several critical challenges for the EMTs: participatory decision-making with the patient's family, inadequate pain management, lack of proper amputation equipment, prolonged helicopter ambulance response, and the mission's subsequent psychological toll. EMTs must be prepared to manage rare, complex cases both clinically and ethico-legally. Therefore, such scenarios should be formally integrated into ongoing training, along with necessary post-mission psychological support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.