BACKGROUND:
Limb salvage for severe trauma has replaced amputation as the primary treatment in many trauma centers. However, long-term outcomes after limb reconstruction or amputation have not been fully evaluated.

METHODS:
We performed a multicenter, prospective, observational study to determine the functional outcomes of 569 patients with severe leg injuries resulting in reconstruction or amputation. The principal outcome measure was the Sickness Impact Profile, a multidimensional measure of self-reported health status (scores range from 0 to 100; scores for the general population average 2 to 3, and scores greater than 10 represent severe disability). Secondary outcomes included limb status and the presence or absence of major complications resulting in rehospitalization.

RESULTS:
At two years, there was no significant difference in scores for the Sickness Impact Profile between the amputation and reconstruction groups (12.6 vs. 11.8, P=0.53). After adjustment for the characteristics of the patients and their injuries, patients who underwent amputation had functional outcomes that were similar to those of patients who underwent reconstruction. Predictors of a poorer score for the Sickness Impact Profile included rehospitalization for a major complication, a low educational level, nonwhite race, poverty, lack of private health insurance, poor social-support network, low self-efficacy (the patient's confidence in being able to resume life activities), smoking, and involvement in disability-compensation litigation. Patients who underwent reconstruction were more likely to be rehospitalized than those who underwent amputation (47.6 percent vs. 33.9 percent, P=0.002). Similar proportions of patients who underwent amputation and patients who underwent reconstruction had returned to work by two years (53.0 percent and 49.4 percent, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS:
Patients with limbs at high risk for amputation can be advised that reconstruction typically results in two-year outcomes equivalent to those of amputation.



Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
81% Article relates to my practice (50/61)
6% Article does not relate to my practice (4/61)
11% Undecided (7/61)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

83% Yes (51/61)
4% No (3/61)
11% Undecided (7/61)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

4% Yes (3/61)
81% No (50/61)
13% Undecided (8/61)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

6% Level 1 (4/61)
36% Level 2 (22/61)
45% Level 3 (28/61)
11% Level 4 (7/61)
0% Level 5 (0/61)