Dataset Information

A Leg to Stand on: Trauma Center Designation and Association with Rate of Limb Salvage in Patients Suffering Severe Lower Extremity Injury.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mangled extremities are one of the most difficult injuries for trauma surgeons to manage. We compare limb salvage rates for a limb-threatening lower extremity injuries managed at Level I vs Level II trauma centers (TCs).

Study design

We identified all adult patients with a limb-threatening injury who underwent primary amputation or limb salvage (LS) using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Improvement Program database at ACS Level I vs II TCs between 2007 and 2017. A limb-threatening injury was defined as an open tibial fracture with concurrent arterial injury (Gustilo type IIIc). Multivariable analysis and propensity score matching were performed to minimize confounding by indication.

Results

There were 712 records for analysis; 391 (54.9%) LS performed and 321 (45.1%) underwent amputation. The rate of LS was statistically higher among patients treated at Level I TCs vs those treated at Level II TCs (47.4% vs 34.8%; p = 0.01). Patients with penetrating injuries (13% vs 9.5%; p = 0.046) and tibial/peroneal artery injury (72.9% vs 50.4%; p < 0.001), as opposed to popliteal artery injury (30.8% vs 58.8%; p < 0.001), were more likely to have LS. The risk-adjusted odds of LS was 3.13 times higher at Level I TCs vs Level II TCs (95% CI, 1.59 to 6.34; p = 0.001). Limb salvage rates were significantly higher at Level I TCs compared with Level II TCs (53.0% vs 34.8%; p = 0.004), even after propensity matching.

Conclusions

In patients with a mangled extremity, limb salvage rates are 50% higher at Level I TCs compared with Level II TCs, independent of case mix and injury severity.

SUBMITTER: Bunn C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8238915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lower extremity amputation is often performed in patients where both lower extremities are at risk due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes, yet the proportion of patients who progress to amputation of their contralateral limb is not well defined. We sought to determine the rate of subsequent amputation on both the ipsilateral and contralateral lower extremities following initial amputation.We conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing lower extremity amputation (exclusive of trauma or tumor) at our institution from 1998 to 2010. We used International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision codes to identify patients and procedures as well as comorbidities. Outcomes included the proportion of patients at 1 and 5 years undergoing contralateral and ipsilateral major and minor amputation stratified by initial major vs minor amputation. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of major contralateral amputation.We identified 1715 patients. Mean age was 67.2 years, 63% were male, 77% were diabetic, and 34% underwent an initial major amputation. After major amputation, 5.7% and 11.5% have a contralateral major amputation at 1 and 5 years, respectively. After minor amputation, 3.2% and 8.4% have a contralateral major amputation at 1 and 5 years while 10.5% and 14.2% have an ipsilateral major amputation at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed end-stage renal disease (hazard ratio [HR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-6.5), chronic renal insufficiency (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.3), atherosclerosis without diabetic neuropathy (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7), atherosclerosis with diabetic neuropathy (HR, 9.1; 95% CI, 3.7-22.5), and initial major amputation (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6) were independently predictive of subsequent contralateral major amputation.Rates of contralateral limb amputation are high and predicted by renal disease, atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis with diabetic neuropathy. Physicians and patients should be alert to the high risk of subsequent amputation in the contralateral leg. All patients, but particularly those at increased risk, should undergo close surveillance and counseling to help prevent subsequent amputations in their contralateral lower extremity.

Project description:ImportanceTrauma centers improve outcomes for young patients with serious injuries. However, most injury-related hospital admissions and deaths occur in older adults, and it is not clear whether trauma center care provides the same benefit in this population.ObjectiveTo examine whether 30- and 365-day mortality of injured older adults is associated with the treating hospital's trauma center level.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, population-based cohort study used Medicare claims data from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 years or older with inpatient admission for traumatic injury in 2014 to 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 31, 2021. Preinjury health was measured using 2013 claims, and outcomes were measured through 2016. The population was stratified by anatomical injury pattern. Propensity scores for level I trauma center treatment were estimated using the Abbreviated Injury Scale, age, and residential proximity to trauma center and then used to match beneficiaries from each trauma level (I, II, III, and IV/non-trauma centers) by injury type.ExposureAdmitting hospital's trauma center level.Main outcomes and measuresCase fatality rates (CFRs) at 30 and 365 days after injury, estimated in the matched sample using multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models.ResultsA total of 433 169 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 82.9 [8.3] years; 68.4% female; 91.5% White) were included in the analysis. A total of 206 275 (47.6%) were admitted to non-trauma centers and 161 492 (37.3%) to level I or II trauma centers. Patients with isolated extremity fracture had the fewest deaths (365-day CFR ranged from 16.1% [95% CI, 11.2%-22.4%] to 17.4% [95% CI, 11.8%-24.6%] by trauma center status). Patients with both hip fracture and traumatic brain injury had the most deaths (365-day CFRs ranged from 33.4% [95% CI, 25.8%-42.1%] to 35.8% [95% CI, 28.9%-43.5%]).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that older adults do not benefit from existing trauma center care, which is designed with younger patients in mind. There is a critical need to improve trauma care practices to address common injury mechanisms and types of injury in older adults.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A current limitation in the care of patients with severe lower extremity traumatic injuries is the lack of a rigorously developed patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument specific to lower extremity trauma patients. OBJECTIVE:This mixed methods protocol aims to describe phases I and II of the development of a PRO instrument for lower extremity trauma patients, following international PRO development guidelines. METHODS:The phase I study follows an interpretive description approach. Development of the PRO instrument begins with identifying the concepts that are important to patients, after which a preliminary conceptual framework is devised from a systematic literature review and used to generate an interview guide. Patients aged 18 years or above with limb-threatening lower extremity traumatic injuries resulting in reconstruction, amputation, or amputation after failed reconstruction will be recruited. The subjects will participate in semistructured, in-depth qualitative interviews to identify all important concepts of interest. The qualitative interview data will be coded with top-level domains, themes, and subthemes. The codes will then be utilized to refine the conceptual framework and generate preliminary items and a set of scales. The preliminary scales will be further refined via a process of conducting cognitive debriefing interviews with lower extremity trauma patients and soliciting expert opinions. Phase III will include a large-scale field test, using Rasch measurement theory to analyze the psychometric properties of the instrument; shortening and finalizing the scales; and determining the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the instrument. RESULTS:Phases I and II of this study have been funded. Phase I of this study has been completed, and phase II began in January 2019 and is expected to be completed in November 2019. Phase III will begin following the completion of phase II. CONCLUSIONS:This protocol describes the initial phases of development of a novel PRO instrument for use in lower extremity trauma patients. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/14397.