MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969188132 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e31802cbc43

Complex Limb Salvage or Early Amputation for Severe Lower-Limb Injury: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

2007· review· en· W1969188132 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmputationObservational studyRehabilitationPsychosocialPhysical therapyMEDLINESurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.404
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.030 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it