Primary amputation versus limb salvage in upper limb major trauma: a systematic review

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Severe upper limb injuries can result in devastating consequences to functional and psychological well-being. Primary objectives of this review were to evaluate indications for amputation versus limb salvage in upper limb major trauma and whether any existing scoring systems can aid in decision-making. Secondary objectives were to assess the functional and psychological outcomes from amputation versus limb salvage. Methods A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was conducted on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Results A total of 15 studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 6113 patients. 141 underwent primary amputation and 5972 limb salvage. General indications for amputation included at least two of the following: uncontrollable haemodynamic instability; extensive and concurrent soft tissue, bone, vascular and/or nerve injuries; prolonged limb ischaemia; and blunt arterial trauma or crush injury. The Mangled Extremity Severity Score alone does not accurately predict need for amputation, however, the Mangled Extremity Syndrome Index may be a more precise tool. Comparable patient-reported functional and psychological outcomes are seen between the two treatment modalities. Conclusions Decision regarding amputation versus limb salvage of the upper limb is multifactorial. Current scoring systems are predominantly based on lower limb trauma, with lack of robust evidence to guide management of the upper extremity. Further high-quality studies are required to validate scoring systems which may aid in decision-making and provide further information on the outcomes from the two treatment options.