Abstract
Introduction
We present the British Military's experience of treating devastating lower limb injuries in personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. We evaluate current surgical practice of attempting to maximise stump length through sequential debridement, rather that early amputation outside the zone of injury. Following an observation that the frequency of sequential amputation had appeared to increase during spring 2009, it was speculated that there may be factors which would predict which patients would require a more aggressive early amputation.
Methods
The Joint Theatre Trauma Registry was interrogated for all cases of amputation between April 2006 and September 2009. The following data were collected: demographics, mechanism of injury, requirement for massive transfusion, use of combat applied tourniquet, number of stump debridements and echelon of care performed, all microbiology and final level of amputation. A regression analysis was performed to establish correlation between each data-set and final level of amputation.
Results
95 cases were identified; 21 were either digits or upper limbs and excluded. Clinical notes of the remaining 74 cases were requested, of which 48 were available representing a total of 66 lower limb stumps. No significant relationships were established between sequential amputation and any of the variables we examined. It was not possible to identify factors with predictive value with respect to which patients would benefit from a more aggressive early amputation approach.
Conclusions
These results support current practice by demonstrating that attempts to balance maximal stump length with sufficient debridement to eradicate infected tissue, does not expose patients to unnecessary operative ‘hits’.
