The PReliMinAry (Pain Relief in Major Amputation) Survey

OBJECTIVES Major Lower Limb Amputation (MLLA) is associated with significant peri- and post-operative pain and has been identified as a research priority by patient and healthcare groups. The PReliMinAry survey was designed to evaluate existing MLLA analgesia strategies; identifying areas of equipoise and informing future research. METHODS A targeted multi-national, multi-disciplinary survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey® (October 5, 2020−November 3, 2020) and advertised via social media and society email lists. The 10-questions explored ‘pain-team’ services, pre-operative neuroleptic medication, pre-incision peripheral nerve blocks and catheters, surgically placed nerve catheters, post-operative adjunctive regimens, future research engagement and equipoise. RESULTS Seventy-six responses were received from 60 hospitals worldwide. Twelve hospitals(20%) had a dedicated MLLA pain team, 7(12%) had none. Most pain teams (n = 52; 87%) assessed pain with a 0−10 numerical rating scale. Over half of respondents “never” preloaded patients with oral neuroleptic agents(n= 42/76; 55%). Forty-seven hospitals(78%) utilized patient controlled opioid analgesia. Most hospitals are able to provide pre-incision loco-regional peripheral nerve blocks, nerve catheters and surgical nerve catheters (95%, 77%, and 90% respectively), but use was variable. Ultrasound(US) guided peripheral nerve catheters were “infrequently” or “never” used in 57% of hospitals, whilst 23% “infrequently” or “never” utilize surgically placed nerve catheters. CONCLUSIONS The survey revealed a preference towards ‘single-shot’ nerve blocks and surgical catheters. A difference between the use of US guided nerve catheters and those surgically placed likely reflects the difference of literature evaluating these techniques. Most respondents felt there was equipoise surrounding future trials evaluating nerve blocks/catheters, but less so for surgical catheters

Early and long-term outcomes following long posterior flap vs. skew flap for below knee amputations

Objective To compare outcomes between long posterior flap (LPF) and skew flap (SF) amputation over a 13 year period. Methods This was a retrospective observational cohort study. Consecutive patients undergoing a LPF or SF below knee amputation (BKA) over a 13 year period at one hospital were identified. Both techniques were performed regularly, depending on tissue loss and surgeon preference. The primary outcome was surgical revision of any kind. Secondary outcomes included revision to above knee amputation (AKA), length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality. A smaller cohort of patients who were alive and unilateral below knee amputees were contacted to ascertain prosthetic use and functional status. Results In total, 242 BKAs were performed in 212 patients (125 LPF and 117 SF; median follow up 25.8 months). Outcomes for the two groups were equivalent for surgical revision of any kind (27 LPF vs. 31 SF; p = .37), revision to an AKA (18 LPF vs. 14 SF; p = .58), LOS (29 days for LPF vs. 28 days for SF; p = .83), and median survival (23.9 months for LPF vs. 28.8 months for SF; p = .89). Multivariable analysis found amputation type had no effect on any outcome. Functional scores from a smaller cohort of 40 unilateral amputees who were contactable demonstrated improved outcomes with the LPF vs. the SF (p = .038). Conclusion Both techniques appear equivalent for rates of surgical residual limb failure. Functional outcomes may be better with the LPF

Systematic review of groin wound surgical site infection incidence after arterial intervention

The objectives were to determine the surgical site infection incidence (including superficial/deep) fter arterial intervention through non-infected groin incisions and identify variables associated with incidence. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomised controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing arterial intervention through a groin incision and reported surgical site infection. Infection incidence was examined in subgroups, variables were subjected to meta-regression. One hundred seventeen studies reporting 65 138 groin incisions in 42 347 patients were included. Overall surgical site infection incidence per incision was 8.1% (1730/21 431): 6.3% (804/12 786) were superficial and 1.9% (241/12 863) were deep. Superficial infection incidence was higher in randomised controlled trials (15.8% [278/1762]) compared with observational studies (4.8% [526/11 024]); deep infection incidence was similar (1.7% (30/1762) and 1.9% (211/11 101) respectively). Aneurysmal pathology (β = −10.229, P < .001) and retrospective observational design (β = −1.118, P = .002) were associated with lower infection incidence. Surgical site infection being a primary outcome was associated with a higher incidence of surgical site infections (β = 3.429, P = .017). The three-fold higher incidence of superficial surgical site infection reported in randomised controlled trials may be because of a more robust clinical review of patients. These results should be considered when benchmarking practice and could inform future trial design

The incidence of surgical site infection following major lower limb amputation:A systematic review

Surgical site infections (SSIs) following major lower limb amputation (MLLA) in vascular patients are a major source of morbidity. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the incidence of SSI following MLLA in vascular patients. This review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023460645). Databases were searched without date restriction using a pre‐defined search strategy. The search identified 1427 articles. Four RCTs and 21 observational studies, reporting on 50 370 MLLAs, were included. Overall SSI incidence per MLLA incision was 7.2% (3628/50370). The incidence of SSI in patients undergoing through‐knee amputation (12.9%) and below‐knee amputation (7.5%) was higher than the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing above‐knee amputation, (3.9%), p &lt; 0.001. The incidence of SSI in studies focusing on patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), diabetes or including patients with both was 8.9%, 6.8% and 7.2%, respectively. SSI is a common complication following MLLA in vascular patients. There is a higher incidence of SSI associated with more distal amputation levels. The reported SSI incidence is similar between patients with underlying PAD and diabetes. Further studies are needed to understand the exact incidence of SSI in vascular patients and the factors which influence this

The incidence of surgical site infection following major lower limb amputation:A systematic review

Surgical site infections (SSIs) following major lower limb amputation (MLLA) in vascular patients are a major source of morbidity. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the incidence of SSI following MLLA in vascular patients. This review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023460645). Databases were searched without date restriction using a pre‐defined search strategy. The search identified 1427 articles. Four RCTs and 21 observational studies, reporting on 50 370 MLLAs, were included. Overall SSI incidence per MLLA incision was 7.2% (3628/50370). The incidence of SSI in patients undergoing through‐knee amputation (12.9%) and below‐knee amputation (7.5%) was higher than the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing above‐knee amputation, (3.9%), p &lt; 0.001. The incidence of SSI in studies focusing on patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), diabetes or including patients with both was 8.9%, 6.8% and 7.2%, respectively. SSI is a common complication following MLLA in vascular patients. There is a higher incidence of SSI associated with more distal amputation levels. The reported SSI incidence is similar between patients with underlying PAD and diabetes. Further studies are needed to understand the exact incidence of SSI in vascular patients and the factors which influence this

PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE followIng major lower limb amputation – a collaboratiVE study (PERCEIVE): Protocol for the PERCEIVE qualitative study

INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to proceed with a major lower limb amputation is life-changing and complex, and it is crucial that the right decision is made at the right time. However, medical specialists are known to poorly predict risk when assessing patients for major surgery, and there is little guidance and research regarding decisions about amputation. The process of shared decision-making between doctors and patients during surgical consultations is also little understood. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse in depth the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Consultations between patients and surgeons at which major lower limb amputation is discussed will be audio-recorded for 10–15 patients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews with patients (and relatives/carers) will then be conducted at two time points: as soon as possible/appropriate after a decision has been reached regarding surgery, and approximately 6 months later. Semi-structured interviews will also be conducted with 10–15 healthcare professionals working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) involved in amputation decision-making. This will include surgeons, anaesthetists and specialist physiotherapists at 2–4 NHS Health Boards/Trusts in Wales and England. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse the recorded consultations; interviews will be analysed thematically. Finally, workshops will be held with patients and healthcare professionals to help synthesise and interpret findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Wales REC 7 (20/WA/0351). Study findings will be published in international peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at national and international scientific meetings. Findings will also be disseminated to a wide NHS and lay audience via presentations at meetings and written summaries for key stakeholder groups

The PERCEIVE quantitative study: PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcome following major lower limb amputation: protocol for a collaboratiVE study

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of outcomes following surgery with high morbidity and mortality rates is essential for informed shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. It is unknown how accurately healthcare professionals predict outcomes following major lower-limb amputation (MLLA). Several MLLA outcome-prediction tools have been developed. These could be valuable in clinical practice, but most require validation in independent cohorts before routine clinical use can be recommended. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals’ predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools. METHOD: This study is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary MLLA for CLTI or diabetes. Healthcare professionals’ accuracy in predicting outcomes at 30-days (death, morbidity and MLLA revision) and 1-year (death, MLLA revision and ambulation) will be evaluated. Sixteen existing outcome-prediction tools specific to MLLA will be examined for validity. Data collection began on 1 October 2020; the end of follow-up will be 1 May 2022. The C-statistic, Hosmer–Lemeshow test, reclassification tables and Brier score will be used to evaluate the predictive performance of healthcare professionals and prediction tools, respectively. STUDY REGISTRATION AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be registered locally at each centre in accordance with local policies before commencing data collection, overseen by local clinician leads. Results will be disseminated to all centres, and any subsequent presentation(s) and/or publication(s) will follow a collaborative co-authorship model