Factors Influencing the Decision to Amputate or Reconstruct after High-Energy Lower Extremity Trauma

Abstract Introduction Physical exam and angiography have important roles in the diagnosis of traumatic lower extremity vascular injury with similar reported high rates of sensitivity and specificity. It has been previously shown that CTA is not universally indicated in the setting of acute lower extremity trauma when a reliable physical examination is obtained. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine if obtaining a CTA following physical examination altered the clinical care of patients following high-energy lower extremity trauma and the generalizability to the military population. Materials and Methods Retrospective review of all patients who underwent lower extremity CTA during the initial trauma evaluation at a Level 1 Trauma Center from 2007 to 2014. Results One hundred and fifty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred and seventeen patient’s initial physical exam excluded limb ischemia with 67 vascular injuries on CTA (9 underwent angiogram in the OR) with no reperfusions required. 40 patients had hard signs of ischemia or ABI’s <0.90, 29 had injuries on CTA, and fifteen underwent a vascular reperfusion procedure for acute vascular injury. Ten of 15 reperfusions required no further angiography after CTA. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of physical exam for needed reperfusion were both 100%. There were no instances of missed vascular injury or readmission and 53 patients were discharged directly from the emergency room after a negative CTA. Conclusions This study suggests that physical exam alone achieves a high sensitivity for vascular injury in lower extremity trauma. Physical exam excluded all lower extremity ischemia without the need for advanced imaging. While CTA was useful to confirm and localize the source of acute vascular injury, the majority of vascular injuries identified on CTA did not affect immediate clinical care and lead to additional unnecessary procedures. However, in patients with suspected vascular injury, a negative CTA was also used as rationale for immediate discharge from the emergency department without further clinical observation. When applied to the deployed military setting the results of this study support the use of physical exam to accurately diagnose limb threatening ischemia at the time of injury or Role 1 facilities with CTA reserved for diagnosing the level of the vascular injury and for potential patient clearance prior to prolonged evacuation.

Download Full-text

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Identifying Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in the Decision to Return to Duty Following Lower Extremity Injury

Military Medicine ◽

10.1093/milmed/usaa350 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 186 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 430-439

Author(s):

Jonathan B Wilson ◽

Christopher A Rábago ◽

Carrie W Hoppes ◽

Phaidra L Harper ◽

Jin Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Extrinsic Factors ◽

Lower Extremity Trauma ◽

Factors Influencing ◽

Successful Recovery ◽

Extremity Trauma ◽

Severity Of Injury ◽

Return To Duty ◽

Intrinsic And Extrinsic Factors

ABSTRACT Introduction Rehabilitation research of wounded service members (SMs) commonly focuses on physical ability to return to duty (RTD) as a measure of successful recovery. However, numerous factors or barriers may influence a SM’s ability and/or desire to RTD after lower extremity musculoskeletal trauma. SMs themselves as well as the clinical care team that works with them daily, often for years at a time, both offer unique perspectives on the influential factors that weigh into decisions to RTD. The purpose of this study was to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors patients and clinicians recognized as influencing the decision to RTD after severe lower extremity trauma. Materials and Methods Thirty-two SMs with severe lower extremity trauma (amputation and lower limb salvage) and 30 providers with at least 2 years’ experience caring for SMs with similar injuries participated separately in either a SM or provider/clinician focus group. Open-ended questions on factors influencing RTD and other rehabilitation success were discussed. Data analysis consisted of qualitative transcription and participatory active sorting, followed by thematic coding and grouping of qualitative data. Results Individual (health condition, personal traits, and career consideration), interpersonal (clinician’s impact, family influence, and peer influence), health care system (systems of care, transdisciplinary rehabilitation, and innovation availability), and institutional (policy, benefits, and unit/commander) themes emerged amongst SM patients and clinicians. Expected frequently occurring themes common to both groups were the influence of the team and family unit, as well as career trajectory options after a severe injury. An unexpected theme was acknowledgment of and dissatisfaction with the recent dismantling of institutional systems that support wounded SMs. Patients placed less emphasis on severity of injury and greater emphasis on system and policy barriers than did clinicians. Conclusions Characterization and classification of these clinician and SM-identified factors that influence the decision to RTD after severe lower extremity trauma is expected to improve the efficacy of future rehabilitation efforts and clinical practice guidelines by providing the clinical team the knowledge necessary to recognize modifiable barriers to patient success. A better understanding of factors influencing RTD decision-making may support policies for mitigating RTD barriers, better monitoring of the changing landscape of RTD after lower extremity trauma, improving systems of health care, and/or reducing turnover and facilitating force readiness.

Download Full-text