Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?

Category: Diabetes, Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) with deep infections and osteomyelitis often lead to partial or complete limb loss. Determination of the appropriate level for amputation is challenging, and is a complex decision based on the patient’s function at...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: James D. Brodell, Judith F. Baumhauer MD, MPH, Benefict F. DiGiovanni MD, A. Samuel Flemister MD, John P. Ketz MD, Irvin Oh MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2019-10-01
Series:Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011419S00118
_version_ 1828784796440985600
author James D. Brodell
Judith F. Baumhauer MD, MPH
Benefict F. DiGiovanni MD
A. Samuel Flemister MD
John P. Ketz MD
Irvin Oh MD
author_facet James D. Brodell
Judith F. Baumhauer MD, MPH
Benefict F. DiGiovanni MD
A. Samuel Flemister MD
John P. Ketz MD
Irvin Oh MD
author_sort James D. Brodell
collection DOAJ
description Category: Diabetes, Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) with deep infections and osteomyelitis often lead to partial or complete limb loss. Determination of the appropriate level for amputation is challenging, and is a complex decision based on the patient’s function at baseline, extent of infection, vascular patency and comorbidities. Although Chopart amputation preserves greater limb length than Syme amputation, additional procedures, such as Achilles tenectomy and tendon transfers are necessary to optimize residual foot function. Challenges with wound healing and prosthesis fitting have been reported. We aimed to investigate the functional and clinical outcomes including patient reported outcomes of Chopart and Syme amputations. Methods: A query utilizing current procedural terminology (CPT) codes was performed to identify patients who had undergone Syme or Chopart amputations for diabetic foot infections by an academic orthopaedic group between August 2013 and September 2018. Twenty-two patients with average age of 59.8 (range, 28-79) years, comprising 18 Chopart amputations and 4 Syme amputations were identified. Demographic characteristics, body mass index, hemoglobin A1c, medical comorbidities, major and minor post-operative complications, unplanned admission or return to OR, revision surgeries, and time to receiving a brace or prosthesis information were compiled. After informed consent was obtained, subjects completed three Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) instruments (Pain Interference (PI), Physical Function (PF), and Depression), and the SF-36. Unpaired student t-tests and Fisher’s exact test were utilized to compare patient cohorts. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata®. Results: The majority (17/18) of Chopart and half (2/4) of Syme patients developed complications including wound dehiscence and recurrent/persistent infection. Readmission and unexpected return to the OR for irrigation and debridement or revision occurred in 11/18 (61%) of Chopart and 2/4 (50%) of Syme patients. Revision amputations occurred in 10/18 (56%) Chopart patients (2 Syme, 8 BKA), and 1/4 (25%) Syme patients (BKA). Half of Chopart patients never received a prosthesis due to delayed wound healing and revision amputation. All Syme amputation patients received a prosthesis and resumed ambulation. The average time to prosthesis was 4.5 and 6.5 months for Syme and Chopart patients, respectively. There was no significant difference between Syme and Chopart patients in all PROMIS domains, or the SF-36 (p-values > 0.05) (Table 1). Conclusion: We found a high rate of complications and revision procedures in Chopart amputation patients. In our patient cohort, there was a high likelihood that a patient who underwent a Chopart amputation ultimately received a below knee amputation. Even after wound healing, patients with Chopart amputations may struggle with obtaining a prosthesis suitable for ambulation. Syme amputation patients were less likely to require revision amputation, and received a prosthesis more rapidly relative to Chopart amputation patients. The complication and revision rates of Chopart amputations indicate that surgeons should exercise judicious patient selection prior to performing these procedures.
first_indexed 2024-12-11T23:38:03Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d71c6500961b41d1afe70f3500f372a6
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2473-0114
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T23:38:03Z
publishDate 2019-10-01
publisher SAGE Publishing
record_format Article
series Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
spelling doaj.art-d71c6500961b41d1afe70f3500f372a62022-12-22T00:45:49ZengSAGE PublishingFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics2473-01142019-10-01410.1177/2473011419S00118Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?James D. BrodellJudith F. Baumhauer MD, MPHBenefict F. DiGiovanni MDA. Samuel Flemister MDJohn P. Ketz MDIrvin Oh MDCategory: Diabetes, Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) with deep infections and osteomyelitis often lead to partial or complete limb loss. Determination of the appropriate level for amputation is challenging, and is a complex decision based on the patient’s function at baseline, extent of infection, vascular patency and comorbidities. Although Chopart amputation preserves greater limb length than Syme amputation, additional procedures, such as Achilles tenectomy and tendon transfers are necessary to optimize residual foot function. Challenges with wound healing and prosthesis fitting have been reported. We aimed to investigate the functional and clinical outcomes including patient reported outcomes of Chopart and Syme amputations. Methods: A query utilizing current procedural terminology (CPT) codes was performed to identify patients who had undergone Syme or Chopart amputations for diabetic foot infections by an academic orthopaedic group between August 2013 and September 2018. Twenty-two patients with average age of 59.8 (range, 28-79) years, comprising 18 Chopart amputations and 4 Syme amputations were identified. Demographic characteristics, body mass index, hemoglobin A1c, medical comorbidities, major and minor post-operative complications, unplanned admission or return to OR, revision surgeries, and time to receiving a brace or prosthesis information were compiled. After informed consent was obtained, subjects completed three Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) instruments (Pain Interference (PI), Physical Function (PF), and Depression), and the SF-36. Unpaired student t-tests and Fisher’s exact test were utilized to compare patient cohorts. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata®. Results: The majority (17/18) of Chopart and half (2/4) of Syme patients developed complications including wound dehiscence and recurrent/persistent infection. Readmission and unexpected return to the OR for irrigation and debridement or revision occurred in 11/18 (61%) of Chopart and 2/4 (50%) of Syme patients. Revision amputations occurred in 10/18 (56%) Chopart patients (2 Syme, 8 BKA), and 1/4 (25%) Syme patients (BKA). Half of Chopart patients never received a prosthesis due to delayed wound healing and revision amputation. All Syme amputation patients received a prosthesis and resumed ambulation. The average time to prosthesis was 4.5 and 6.5 months for Syme and Chopart patients, respectively. There was no significant difference between Syme and Chopart patients in all PROMIS domains, or the SF-36 (p-values > 0.05) (Table 1). Conclusion: We found a high rate of complications and revision procedures in Chopart amputation patients. In our patient cohort, there was a high likelihood that a patient who underwent a Chopart amputation ultimately received a below knee amputation. Even after wound healing, patients with Chopart amputations may struggle with obtaining a prosthesis suitable for ambulation. Syme amputation patients were less likely to require revision amputation, and received a prosthesis more rapidly relative to Chopart amputation patients. The complication and revision rates of Chopart amputations indicate that surgeons should exercise judicious patient selection prior to performing these procedures.https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011419S00118
spellingShingle James D. Brodell
Judith F. Baumhauer MD, MPH
Benefict F. DiGiovanni MD
A. Samuel Flemister MD
John P. Ketz MD
Irvin Oh MD
Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
title Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?
title_full Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?
title_fullStr Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?
title_full_unstemmed Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?
title_short Should Chopart Amputation be Performed in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients?
title_sort should chopart amputation be performed in diabetic foot ulcer patients
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011419S00118
work_keys_str_mv AT jamesdbrodell shouldchopartamputationbeperformedindiabeticfootulcerpatients
AT judithfbaumhauermdmph shouldchopartamputationbeperformedindiabeticfootulcerpatients
AT benefictfdigiovannimd shouldchopartamputationbeperformedindiabeticfootulcerpatients
AT asamuelflemistermd shouldchopartamputationbeperformedindiabeticfootulcerpatients
AT johnpketzmd shouldchopartamputationbeperformedindiabeticfootulcerpatients
AT irvinohmd shouldchopartamputationbeperformedindiabeticfootulcerpatients