4.3 Article

The importance of limb preservation in the diabetic population

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 227-231

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2011.02.001

关键词

Limb salvage; Chopart amputation; Lisfranc amputation; Transmetatarsal amputation; Below the knee amputation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Limb salvage in the diabetic population is complex, controversial, costly and variable throughout the world. Within the diabetic population, the indications and morbidity surrounding major leg amputation have not been well defined. Research design and methods: A retrospective study of the Georgetown Limb Salvage Registry was conducted to determine outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing proximal forefoot/midfoot (PF/M) amputations and to help define the indications for major leg amputation in ambulatory diabetic patients. Results: Of the 937 ambulatory diabetic patients identified during this time period, 808 who presented with superficial ulcers or distal forefoot disease and who did not go on to PF/M or higher amputation were eliminated. Records of 88 patients (92 limbs) in the PF/M amputation group and 25 patients in the below the knee amputation (BKA) group were reviewed (no above knee amputations were performed). At 2 years in the PF/M amputation group, 80% (70/88) of patients were still alive, 73% (68/92) of the limbs remained intact, and 64% of patients (56/88) were ambulatory. In contrast, in the BKA population at 2 years, 52% (13/25) of patients were deceased and 64% (16/25) were ambulating with a prosthetic limb (or had been ambulating at the time of death). The only statistically significant difference between these two groups was the presence of Charcot collapse and rear-foot disease in the BKA group. Conclusion: Aggressive efforts at salvage with PF/M amputation procedures should be entertained prior to higher level amputations due to the increased morbidity and mortality evidenced. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据