Search

Objective: To determine outcomes of surviving patients who underwent transfemoral amputation as part of treatment for lower extremity malignancy at a mean 15 years postoperatively, with a minimum 2-year follow-up., Design: Retrospective, case control., Setting: Tertiary care university medical center., Patients: Thirty-five of 38 consecutively admitted patients free of metastatic disease managed with transfemoral amputation as part of treatment of a lower extremity bone and/or soft tissue malignancy between 1966 and 1997 at 1 institution. The control group included 35 age- and gender-matched subjects recruited from the local driver's license office., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measures: Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA), Short Form-12 General Health Status Survey (SF-12), physical performance battery, cost, and demographic data., Results: Controls showed superior scores as measured by the MFA (P < .0001), the physical component summary of the SF-12 (P = .0002), and the physical performance battery (P < .0001), but had inferior scores on the mental component summary of the SF-12 (P < .0001). With the numbers available, no differences were found between study and control subjects in terms of employment rate (P = .51), education level (P = .66), income level (P =.44), marital status (P = .79), incidence of self-reported health problems (P = .14), and alcohol (P =.42) and tobacco (P = .82) use. Ten patients were included in the cost analysis; the mean cost to obtain and maintain a lower extremity prosthesis was $4225 per year (range, 623 dollars-8517 dollars)., Conclusions: Although the decrease in physical performance was anticipated in the study group, the group differed very little from the control population in terms of employment, education level, income, marital and home status, incidence of self-reported health problems, incidence of self-reported depression, and alcohol and tobacco use. Also, the long-term cost of maintaining a lower extremity prosthesis is noted., (Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation)

Objective: To quantify the differences in physical disability and handicap experienced by patients with lower extremity sarcoma who required amputation for their primary tumor as compared with those treated by limb-sparing surgery., Design: Matched case-control study. Twelve patients with amputation were matched with 24 patients treated by limb-sparing surgery on the following variables: age, gender, length of follow-up, bone versus soft-tissue tumor, anatomic site, and treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy., Patients: Patients who underwent above-knee amputation (AKA) or below-knee amputation (BKA) for primary soft-tissue or bone sarcoma, who had not developed local or systemic recurrence, and who had been followed up for at least 1 year since surgery., Main Outcome Measures: The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), a measure of physical disability; the Shortform-36 (SF-36), a generic health status measure; and the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL), a measure of handicap., Results: Mean TESS score for the patients with amputations was 74.5 versus 85.1 for the limb-sparing patients. (p = .15). Only the physical function subscale of the SF-36 showed statistically significant differences, with means of 45 and 71.1 for the amputation versus limb-sparing groups, respectively (p = .03). The RNL for the amputation group was 84.4 versus 97 for the limb-sparing group (p = .05). Seven of the 12 patients with amputations experienced ongoing difficulty with the soft tissues overlying their stumps., Conclusions: There was a trend toward increased disability for those in the amputation group versus those in the limb-sparing group, with the amputation group showing significantly higher levels of handicap. These data suggest that the differences in disability between amputation and limb-sparing patients are smaller than anticipated. The differences may be more notable in measuring handicap.

Amputation is still necessary to achieve disease-free margins in some patients with osteogenic sarcoma. Improving the quality of life for this largely young patient population has become increasingly important considering the dramatic increase in their survival rate. A multidisciplinary approach should include prosthetic devices that are comfortable and lightweight, and produce an energy-efficient gait, an aggressive postoperative rehabilitation, and an objective evaluation of progress. This approach will help improve the high net energy expenditure of ambulation and the asymmetrical stance time experienced by this group of individuals and allow them to gain equal status in society.

The physiatrist's chief concern for the child with an amputation secondary to tumor is that of comprehensive prosthetic rehabilitation. Problems unique to these children, factors which affect restoration favorably or unfavorably, principles of management, and measures of outcome are described and also illustrated by a case history. A multidisciplinary pediatric amputee clinic is recommended as the optimal setting for a prosthetic rehabilitation program.

An analysis of data of 348 patients with malignant tumors of soft tissues has shown that 128 of them had been subjected to the amputation of extremities at different levels. The use of microsurgical techniques favours the improvement of the method of amputation of lower extremities, in particular the transplantation of a calcaneoplantar flap onto the stump end. In order to make the treatment of phantom limb pains more effective acupuncture should be included into the complex of therapeutic measures in addition to traditional methods. Close contacts with prostheses-makers can facilitate earlier prosthesis which can give positive effects on the following rehabilitation of such patients.

The surgeon, by his manner and attitude, sets the tone for the rehabilitation program of the cancer patient who has undergone amputation. The initial encounter with the patient and his family tends to shape a relationship that persists throughout the treatment and rehabilitation program. In our practice, the surgeon remains the patient's physician before, during, and after the amputation. If the surgeon is also willing to direct the rehabilitation program, the continuity thus obtained is enormously helpful.