Complex Limb Salvage or Early Amputation for Severe Lower-Limb Injury: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Leg threatening injuries present patients and clinicians with a difficult decision: whether to pursue primary amputation or limb salvage? The purpose of our study was to review the literature in an effort to inform this management decision. METHODS: We systematically searched and selected observational studies that reported on individuals presenting with leg threatening injuries comparing outcomes of limb salvage versus primary amputation. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE. We reported on the following outcomes, and pooled data across trials when possible: length of hospital stay, total rehabilitation time, cost, clinical outcomes, failure rate for limb salvage, function & quality of life, pain, return to work, factors associated with poor outcome, and patient preference. RESULTS: Nine observational studies contributed data to our systematic review. The current evidence suggests that while length of hospital stay is similar for limb salvage and primary amputation, length of rehabilitation and total costs are higher for limb salvage patients. Salvage patients requires greater additional surgery and are significantly more likely to undergo re-hospitalization. Long-term functional outcomes (up to 7 years post injury) are equivalent between limb salvage and primary amputation; both forms of management are associated with high rates of self-reported disability (40%; to 50%;), and functional status continues to worsen over time. Report of pain following limb salvage or primary amputation is similar. Return to work is essentially the same between limb salvage and primary amputation groups, with approximately half of such patients returning to competitive employment at 2 years post injury. Both clinical and psychosocial factors are associated with poorer functional outcomes. At the time of injury patients prefer limb salvage, but the majority of failed salvage patients would opt for early amputation if they could decide again. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: Functional outcome among patients who present with leg-threatening injuries are not significantly different, at least up to 7 years, whether they are managed with limb salvage or primary amputation. Research to optimize triage decisions to avoid failed limb salvage as well as on interventions targeting important psychosocial prognostic variables should be considered a priority.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".