<\/span><\/h2>\nPillgram-Larsen J. COMPRESSION BANDAGE, NOT TOURNIQUET. EXPERIENCE IN 68 PATIENTS WITH TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION AFTER MINE INJURIES. PAPER NBR 04 – 2 MP-HFM-109 . ATACCC august 2004. Mellesmo S, Pillgram-Larsen J. Primary care of amputation injuries. JEUR 1995; 8: 131-35. Husum H, Gilbert M, Wisborg T, Pillgram-Larsen J. Prehospital tourniquets: There should be no controversy. J Trauma 2004;56:214-5. Pillgram-Larsen J, Mellesmo S, Peck R. Injuries from mines. Tidsskr Nor L\u00e6geforen 1992; 112: 2183- 7. [In Norwegian with English abstract] Pillgram-Larsen J, Mellesmo S. Not tourniquet, but a compressive bandage. Experience in 68 patients with amputation after mine injuries. Tidsskr Nor L\u00e6geforen 1992; 112: 2188-90. [In Norwegian with English abstract]<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Combined Arterial and Skeletal Extremity Trauma<\/p>\n
Eric R. Frykberg, MD. FACS<\/p>\n
Professor of Surgery<\/p>\n
University of Florida<\/p>\n
Jacksonville, Florida<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Complex extremity trauma involving both arterial and skeletal injuries remains challenging. This combination of injuries is rare, comprising only 0.2% of all military and civilian trauma, and only 0.5%-1.7% of all extremity fractures and dislocations.\u00a0 Vascular and trauma surgeons are more likely than orthopedic surgeons to encounter these injuries, as 10%-70% of all extremity arterial injuries are associated with skeletal trauma.\u00a0 In past years, the great majority of complex extremity injuries in the civilian sector have been caused by blunt trauma, although in some recent series penetrating trauma has caused a majority of these injuries.\u00a0 Combat injuries of this type from military series usually are due to high velocity penetrating trauma.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Combined arterial and skeletal extremity trauma imparts a substantially higher risk of limb loss and limb morbidity than do isolated skeletal and arterial injuries.\u00a0 Debakey and Simeone documented this in WWII battle casualties, in which all injured arteries were ligated, reporting amputation in 60% of all combined injuries and 42% in isolated arterial injuries.\u00a0 Although McNamara and coworkers(65) reported a substantial improvement in limb salvage from\u00a0 isolated arterial injuries in the Vietnam War, combined injuries still had a 10-fold greater rate of limb loss(23% vs 2.5%).\u00a0 These authors also documented a higher incidence of failed vascular repair among combined extremity injuries (33%) than among isolated extremity arterial injuries(5%).\u00a0 Romanoff and coworkers reported more than a 3-fold increase in limb loss in combined combat extremity trauma compared to isolated arterial injuries (36% vs 11%) in the hostilities in Israel.\u00a0 This trend has continued into recent years in the civilian sector, even in the most experienced trauma centers, where amputation rates approaching 70% still are reported from combined arterial and skeletal extremity trauma, while less than 5% of limbs currently are lost following isolated arterial or skeletal trauma.\u00a0 Limb loss most commonly is attributed to delay in diagnosis and revascularization in most published series of this unique trauma.\u00a0 Major nerve damage, extensive soft tissue injury which disrupts collaterals and prevents adequate vessel coverage, infection, and compartment syndrome are other reasons for such a high rate of loss of these severely compromised limbs.<\/p>\n
Prompt diagnosis is essential if rapid treatment and optimal limb salvage is to be achieved in these complex extremity injuries.\u00a0 This requires that a high index of suspicion of arterial trauma be applied to every injured extremity by noting whether any hard signs are present (i.e. active hemorrhage, large, expanding or pulsatile hamatoma, bruit or thrill over wound, absent distal pulses, and signs of distal ischemia\u0097the 5 P\u0092s: pain, pallor, paralysis, paresthesias, poikilothermy, or coolness).\u00a0 The presence of hard signs in any blunt or complex extremity trauma requires immediate arteriography due to the relatively low incidence of surgically significant arterial injury in this setting.\u00a0 This is best done by the surgeon as a percutaneous hand-injected study in the trauma center, or on the operating table, to minimize time delay while achieving excellent accuracy.\u00a0 The absence of hard signs excludes major arterial injury with sufficient accuracy to allow further diagnostic workup to be avoided.\u00a0 Since most complex extremity trauma does not manifest hard signs, avoiding the considerable expense of arteriography in this population has substantial economic advantages.<\/p>\n
This principle holds true even for the especially high risk injury of posterior knee dislocation, in which setting routine arteriography has been advocated in all cases, due to a substantial risk of popliteal artery disruption and its associated high rate of limb loss.\u00a0 However, those published studies that compare the clinical manifestations of patients with posterior knee dislocation with outcome show no surgically significant arterial injuries in that majority of patients who have no hard signs(Table 1), confirmed by follow-ups of up to 2 years.\u00a0 Again, most cases present without hard signs, allowing major resource savings at no harm to the patient by using only physical findings to exclude arterial injury.\u00a0 Arteriography is indicated only in that minority of patients with knee dislocation presenting with hard signs, to exclude the need for surgery in those 30% of patients who do not have an arterial injury.\u00a0 Immediate surgery without imaging may be undertaken if the clinical picture clearly indicates vascular injury(i.e. absent pulse, cold ischemic foot).<\/p>\n
There is no clear role for noninvasive testing in the initial evaluation of complex extremity injuries (Doppler pressures or signals, duplex U\/S), due to a paucity of studies of their use in this category of trauma, and uncertainty over its accuracy in the presence of severe tissue disruption and large bulky dressings.\u00a0 Further study is necessary to clarify this. Again, the physical exam quite clearly answers all questions of management in this setting, as absent pulses mandates ruling out vascular injury, and present pulses in the absence of other hard signs reliably excludes vascular injury as well as any imaging modality.\u00a0 Noninvasives add nothing and may lead the examiner astray, as Doppler flow signals may be transmitted by collaterals around a completely occluded or transected vessel, while a pulse can not.\u00a0 Thus, Doppler flow signals DO NOT exclude a vascular injury.\u00a0 The presence or absence of a pulse is all that is necessary to decide on the next step in diagnosis.<\/p>\n
Appropriate prioritization of the management of the vascular and skeletal injuries is a major determinant of limb salvage.\u00a0 Initial fracture stabilization and fixation has been advocated in past years, due to concerns that an established vascular repair will be disrupted by subsequent orthopedic manipulation, as long as there is no overt ischemia.\u00a0 However, published evidence has refuted such concerns, showing minimal disruption of initial vascular repairs, and no adverse impact of prompt revascularization on outcome.\u00a0 Also, substantial tissue damage still can occur in the absence of clinical signs of ischemia, as our understanding of compartment syndrome has made clear.\u00a0 Further, clinical studies have shown a substantially higher rate of limb salvage among combined vascular and skeletal extremity injuries in which revascularization is performed first, compared with those in which it is delayed until the skeleton is addressed.<\/p>\n
In fact, definitive vascular repair should<\/em> be delayed in cases of unstable or severely comminuted fractures or dislocations, segmental bone loss, or severe soft tissue destruction and contamination, due to the risk of undue tension or slack on the repaired vessel when the limb is fixed at its proper length, and to the possibility of disruption from skeletal manipulation.\u00a0 But this should not ever delay immediate restoration of perfusion to the extremity, which can be accomplished rapidly by temporary intraluminal shunting until skeletal stabilization and soft tissue debridement has been completed.\u00a0 Alternatively, immediate definitive vascular repair should be the means of initial revascularization in the setting of uncomplicated and stable skeletal injuries in which minimal subsequent manipulation and length discrepancy is anticipated.<\/p>\nExternal fixation of the skeleton is preferred when rapid stabilization is necessary, in open, comminuted and unstable fractures, or in the presence of severe soft tissue disruption and contamination.\u00a0 Internal fixation has been used successfully in this setting, and is preferred if the patient\u0092s condition permits.<\/p>\n
The consensus of authorities now favors limb revascularization as the first priority in all combined extremity trauma.\u00a0 How the revascularization is accomplished(i.e. definitive repair or temporary shunting) is a matter of judgement based on the nature of the skeletal and soft tissue injuries and the condition of the patient.\u00a0 Only with a cooperative multidisciplinary effort, with close communication between the trauma, orthopedic and plastic surgeons, can the outcome of these injuries be optimized.<\/p>\n
In addition to prompt diagnosis with on-table arteriography, liberal use of a number of surgical adjuncts has improved limb salvage following combined arterial and skeletal extremity trauma.\u00a0 Intra-operative completion arteriography is important to document patency of the repair, as any technical errors could easily result in limb loss in these severely compromised limbs.\u00a0 Four compartment fasciotomy should be applied liberally and prophylactically in this setting due to the high risk of compartment syndrome following reperfusion.\u00a0 Extra-anatomic bypass, and pedicled or free-tissue flap coverage should be considered in the setting of severe contamination and soft tissue injury or loss to protect the vascular repair.\u00a0 Careful attention to all of these considerations, as well as to avoiding unnecessary surgery for nonocclusive arterial lesions, and meticulous postoperative surveillance, has led to dramatic improvements in limb salvage, with amputation rates even in this challenging setting falling below 10% in a small number of recent studies.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The decision for amputation<\/p>\n
Among the most difficult challenges in the management of complex extremity trauma is the decision as to whether and when amputation is indicated.\u00a0 Recent advances in the ability to salvage limbs have led to prolonged and aggressive reconstruction efforts following injuries which would have undergone amputation in the past.\u00a0 Such heroic efforts actually may harm patients in terms of prolonging hospitalization and time lost from work, as well as increasing sepsis, operative procedures, and even mortality.\u00a0 These outcomes are especially undesirable if amputation or severe limb dysfunction ultimately occur anyway.<\/p>\n
Although it is often difficult to predict soon after injury which extremities will require amputation, there are injuries of such destruction and severity that a decision for immediate, or primary, amputation can be made easily.\u00a0 These are injuries in which it is obvious that attempts at revascularization are futile due to the extent of soft tissue and skeletal trauma, major nerves are transected, or other life-threatening injuries are present which prevent any attention to the limbs.\u00a0 Gustilo III-C injuries (comminuted open tibial-fibular fractures with arterial injury) are an example of limb trauma generally mandating immediate amputation.<\/p>\n
However, most complex extremity injuries are not that clear cut.\u00a0 In these cases, immediate revascularization should be performed, along with important surgical adjuncts such as shunts, fasciotomy, or extra-anatomic bypass, the skeleton should be stabilized promptly by either traction or external fixation, and then the extremity should be observed over the next 24-48 hours to determine what level of function and tissue viability returns.\u00a0 Nerve transection never should be assumed, but only determined by direct visualization, as vascular insufficiency or muscle damage alone may cause profound deficits that can be confused with nerve damage.\u00a0 If revascularization fails, tissue loss is severe or worsens, systemic sepsis or crush syndrome develops, or profound neurologic or functional deficits persist, amputation then should be performed.\u00a0 If improvement occurs, limb salvage may proceed, but should be assessed just as critically at each successive stage to minimize unnecessarily prolonged, costly and futile efforts.<\/p>\n
A number of scoring systems have been developed to objectify this difficult decision that is so often clouded by subjective and wishful thinking, often at the patient\u0092s expense.\u00a0 Although none have been found to be prospectively useful in predicting amputation or the degree of functional impairment, they do focus attention on those factors which most closely correlate with outcome, and which must be a part of the treatment decision (Table 2).\u00a0 Another major consideration in this decision is whether the injury is in the upper or lower extremity, as the former is less likely to require amputation, being more tolerant of deficits in protective sensation, motor function, weight-bearing concerns, and length discrepancy, and prostheses tend to be less satisfactory.<\/p>\n
This decision must be a matter of clinical judgement based on each individual case, and it must always involve a consensus of the entire health care team, including the trauma, orthopedic, vascular and plastic surgeons, rehabilitation specialist, psychologist, nursing, and most importantly the patient and family.\u00a0 The sophistication of limb prostheses, prompt return to work, short hospitalizations and lower costs and morbidity following early amputation are often preferable to salvage efforts which may take months or years and still fail.\u00a0 The ultimate goal is to return the patient to a comfortable, self-sufficient and productive life as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Table 1: Relation of Physical Findings of Vascular Injury to Outcome Following Knee Dislocation<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Author<\/p>\n
No. KD<\/p>\n
Hard Signs Present<\/p>\n
No. (%) a\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 # Surgery(%)b<\/p>\n
Hard Signs Absent<\/p>\n
No. (%) a\u00a0\u00a0 # Surgery (%)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Kaufman et al<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
19<\/p>\n
4 (21)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4 (100)<\/p>\n
15 (79)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Treiman et al<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
115<\/p>\n
29 (25)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 22 (75)<\/p>\n
86 (75)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Dennis et al<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
38<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2 (13)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2 (100)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
36 (87)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Kendall et al<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
37<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
6 (16)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 6 (100)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
31 (84)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Miranda et al<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
32<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
8 (25)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 6 (75)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
24 (75)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Martinez et al<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
23<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
11 (48)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2 (18)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
12 (52)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Total<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
264<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
60 (23)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 42 (70)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
204 (77)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
aPercentage of all knee dislocations.<\/p>\n
bPercentage of all patients with hard signs.<\/p>\n
KD = Knee dislocation
\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Table 2: High-Risk Factors for Ultimate Limb Loss or Severe Dysfunction Following Combined Vascular and Skeletal Extremity Trauma<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Gustilo III – C skeletal injuries<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Transected tibial or sciatic nerve<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Transection of 2 of 3 upper extremity nerves<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Prolonged ischemia (> 6-12 hours)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Shock and life-threatening associated injuries<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Below-knee arterial injury<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Extensive soft tissue loss<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Crush injury<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Multiple fractures<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Elderly with medical comorbidity<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Severe contamination<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Patient preference<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nREFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Howe HR, Poole GV, Hansen KJ, et al: Salvage of lower extremities following combined orthopedic and vascular trauma: A predictive salvage index. Am Surg 53:205,1987.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 McNamara JJ, Brief DK, Stremple JF et al: Management of fractures with associated arterial injury in combat casualties. J Trauma 13:17,1973.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Applebaum R. Yellin AE, Weaver FA et al: Role of routine arteriography in blunt lower extremity trauma. Am J Surg 160:221,1990.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Norman J, Gahtan V, Franz M et al: Occult vascular injuries following gunshot wounds resulting in long bone fractures of the extremities. Am Surg 61:146,1995.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Miranda FE, Dennis JW, Veldenz HC et al: Confirmation of the safety and accuracy of physical examination in the evaluation of knee dislocation for popliteal artery injury: A prospective study. J Trauma 49:375,2000.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Graham JM et al: Five-year experience with PTFE grafts in vascular wounds. J Trauma 25:71,1985.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Feliciano DV, Accola KD, Burch JM et al: Extraanatomic bypass for peripheral arterial injuries. Am J Surg 158:506,1989.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Khalil IM, Livingston DH: Intravascular shunts in complex lower limb trauma. J Vasc Surg 4:582,1986.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mubarak SJ, Hargens AR: Acute compartment syndromes. Surg Clinic North Am 63:539,1983.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Feliciano DV, Cruse PA, Spjut-Patrinely V et al: Fasciotomy after trauma to the extremities. Am J Surg 156:533,1988.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Attebery LR, Dennis JW, Russo-Alesi F et al: Changing patterns of arterial injuries associated with fractures and dislocations. J Am Coll Surg 183:377,1996.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bishara RA, Pasch AR, Lim LT et al: Improved results in the treatment of civilian vascular injuries associated with fractures and dislocations. J Vasc Surg 3:707,1986.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Johansen K, Daines M, Howey T et al: Objective criteria accurately predict amputation following lower extremity trauma. J Trauma 30:568,1990.<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Palazzo JC, Ristow AB, Cury JM et al: Traumatic vascular lesions associated with fractures and dislocations. J Cardiovasc Surg 27:688,1986.<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Romanoff H, Goldberger S: Combined severe vascular and skeletal trauma: management and results. J Cardiovasc Surg 20:493,1979.<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Kaufman SL, Martin LG: Arterial injuries associated with complete dislocation of the knee. Radiology 184:153,1992.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Treiman GS, Yellin AE, Weaver FA et al: Examination of the patient with a knee dislocation: the case for selective arteriography. Arch Surg 127:1056,1992<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dennis JW, Jagger C, Butcher JL et al: Reassessing the role of arteriograms in the management of posterior knee dislocations. J Trauma 35:692,1993.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Kendall RW, Taylor DC, Salvian AJ et al: The role of arteriography in assessing vascular injuries associated with dislocations of the knee. J Trauma 35:875,1993.<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Martinez D, Sweatman K, Thompson EC: Popliteal artery injury associated with knee dislocations. Am Surg 67:165,2001.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Durham RM, Mistry BM, Mazuski JE et al: Outcome and utility of scoring systems in the management of the mangled extremity. Am J Surg 172:569,1996.<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, Kellam JF, et al: An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation of leg-threatening injuries. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1924-31.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Stannard JP, Sheils TM, Lopez-Ben RR, et al: Vascular injuries in knee dislocations: the role of physical examination in determining the need for arteriography. J Bone Joint Surg 2004;86A:910-915.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Educational Objectives:<\/p>\n
\n- Understand the clinical manifestations of vascular injury and the diagnostic approaches to confirm or exclude vascular injury in complex extremity trauma.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Know the appropriate prioritization of management of vascular injury, skeletal injury, and soft tissue and nerve and tendon injury in complex extremity trauma<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0 Be familiar with the criteria for early amputation in complex extremity trauma.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/span>Mangled Extremity Scoring System (MESS Score)<\/span><\/h2>\nThere are four components to MESS<\/b>: limb ischemia, patient age, presence of shock, and mechanism of injury. Each component is assigned an integer value depending on severity. The possible values range from 1 to 14. Here\u2019s the breakdown of each component:<\/p>\n
Ischemia<\/b><\/p>\n\n- +1<\/b> Reduced pulse but normal perfusion<\/li>\n
- +2<\/b> Pulseless, paresthetic, reduced capillary refill<\/li>\n
- +3<\/b> Cool, paralyzed, insensate<\/li>\n
- Add 3 points<\/b> if limb ischemia has been present more than 6 hours<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Age<\/b><\/p>\n\n- +0<\/b> \u00a0 <30 years<\/li>\n
- +1<\/b> \u00a0 30-50 years<\/li>\n
- +2<\/b> \u00a0 >50 years<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Shock<\/b><\/p>\n\n- +0<\/b> SBP >90 consistently<\/li>\n
- +1<\/b> Transient hypotension<\/li>\n
- +2<\/b> Persistent hypotension<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Mechanism <\/b>(kinetic energy)<\/p>\n\n- +1<\/b> Low (stab, gunshot, simple fracture)<\/li>\n
- +2<\/b> Medium (dislocation, open or multiple fractures)<\/li>\n
- +3<\/b> High (high speed MVC, rifle)<\/li>\n
- +4<\/b> Very high (high energy trauma with gross contamination)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Per the original study, values of 7 or greater predict low salvageability<\/b>. However, with advancing technology, drugs, and operative techniques, the threshold has been creeping higher. But not that much higher, probably 8 or so.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Array<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7,17],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Mangled Extremity - Crashing Patient<\/title>\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n