Transtibial Amputation Outcomes Study
- Conditions
- Transtibial Amputation
- Interventions
- Procedure: Ertl ProcedureProcedure: Burgess Procedure
- Registration Number
- NCT01821976
- Lead Sponsor
- Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium
- Brief Summary
The goals of the TAOS study is to determine the best procedures for below the knee amputations. There are two different procedures currently used by surgeons around the county: the Erlt procedure and the Burgess procedure. Proponents of the Ertl procedure advocate that the surgical formation of a tibia to fibula bone bridge provides stability, shape and weight bearing capability to the residual limb that result in less pain and better prosthetic fit and alignment. This procedure is popular especially among the military but it's advantages over the Burgess procedure are not well supported by current research. This study aims to compare the two amputation procedures in an adequately powered randomized trial.
- Detailed Description
High-energy open fractures, blast, gunshot wound and crush injuries to the distal tibia, ankle, hind foot and midfoot are common challenges to military and civilian trauma surgeons (Brown, 2009; Covey, 2002; Ficke, 2007; McGuigan, 2007; Hansen, 2001). Many surgeons believe that an early transtibial amputation provides a better long term functional outcome than limb salvage for these injuries (Hansen, 2001; Myerson, 1994; Sanders, 1992; Turchin,1999; Shawen, 2010;Ellington 2012). If a transtibial amputation is selected as the treatment for the patient, a controversy remains regarding the appropriate amputation technique. Many surgeons advocate for an amputation with a tibia-fibula synostosis technique (Ertl procedure) in young and active patients, believing that this procedure provides a better prosthetic interface, an end bearing capacity and soft tissue stability that improves performance and functional outcomes. (Pinto 2004; Pinzur 2006; Commuri 2010). Others strongly advocate for a standard posterior flap (Burgess procedure) without the synostosis, arguing that patients have similar outcomes with fewer complications and lower costs. (Pinzur 2008; Tindle 2011) To date, the outcomes of the transtibial amputation techniques have not been subjected to an appropriately powered prospective randomized clinical trial.
The primary study objective is to compare functional outcomes and number of revision surgeries to the amputated limb after first amputation for patients undergoing a transtibial amputation and randomized to receive a tibia-fibula synostosis (Ertl procedure) versus a standard posterior flap procedure (Burgess procedure).
The secondary study objectives are to compare levels of impairment for patients undergoing a transtibial amputation and randomized to receive a tibia-fibula synostosis (Ertl procedure) versus a standard posterior flap procedure (Burgess procedure); to compare levels of pain for patients undergoing a transtibial amputation and randomized to receive a tibia-fibula synostosis (Ertl procedure) versus a standard posterior flap procedure (Burgess procedure); and to compare initial hospitalization and overall treatment costs (through the 18 month follow-up) for patients undergoing a transtibial amputation and are randomized to receive a tibia-fibula synostosis (Ertl procedure) versus a standard posterior flap procedure (Burgess procedure). Patients who refuse randomization have the option of participating in a prospective observational study and the type of amputation is decided by the surgeon and patient.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 250
-
Patients requiring a unilateral transtibial amputation following major limb trauma regardless of when the injury occurred
-
The injury and its treatment must meet the following criteria:
- The residual fibula is not fractured or if fractured, is stabilized by internal fixation allowing for either the Ertl or Burgess procedure
- Proximal tibia/fibula joint is stabilized
- Soft tissue coverage allows for atypical closure and skin graft <100 cm2
- Amputation will result in a residual limb that is ≥10 cm from joint line to end of tibia
-
Ages 18 and 60 inclusive
- At time of consent, patient has a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) motor score of 0-4 or a GCS motor score of 5 with a significant traumatic brain injury (defined as an AIS code of 5 or 6)
- Patients with wound closure requiring a free tissue transfer
- Fibula fractures proximal to the tibial bone cut that cannot be stabilized
- Late amputation with presence of one of the following conditions: (i) infection within the zone of injury; (ii) chronic regional pain syndrome; (iii) post-traumatic thrombophlebitis
- Patient has a spinal cord deficit
- Patient has a previous leg or foot amputation or is non-ambulatory pre-injury
- Patient has third degree burns on >10% total surface area affecting the study limb
- Patient has a documented psychiatric disorder
- Patient is unable to speak either English or Spanish
- Severe problems with maintaining follow-up (e.g. patients who are prisoners or homeless at the time of injury or who are intellectually challenged without adequate family support).
- Patient has an amputation to one or both upper extremities (excluding digits)
- Patient is outside hospital's catchment area
- Patient follow-up is planned at another medical center
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Ertl Procedure Ertl Procedure Patients randomized to the Ertl Procedure Arm will receive an amputation very similar to the Burgess Procedure, except the surgeon will perform an additional step to make the cut end of the tibia bone heal to the cut end of the fibula bone with a bone bridge. This bone bridge connects the two bones together. Burgess Procedure Burgess Procedure Patients randomized to the Burgess Procedure Arm will receive a below the knee amputation where the bone is cut and skin and muscle from the back of the leg are rotated to cover the cut end of your bone. This provides good soft tissue padding to the bone and a good shape to the leg for later fitting of your prosthesis.
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Patient Reported Function 18 Months Patient reported function as measured using the Short Form Musculoskeletal Assessment (SMFA) 18 months following amputation
Number of Revision Surgeries 18 Months Number of revision surgeries to the amputated limb within 18 months after the first amputation
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Physical Impairment 18 Months Physical impairment will be determined using objective performance measures of agility (4 step square test and Illinois Agility Test), strength and power (sit-to-stand test and timed stair climb), speed (self-selected walking speed and 40 yard shuttle run), postural stability (single leg stance) and overall activity measured using the Step Watch activity monitor
Self Reported Pain 18 Months Pain measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire
Treatment Costs 18 Months Initial hospitalization and overall treatment costs as determined from hospitals bills and data on utilization of outpatient health services
Trial Locations
- Locations (23)
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
🇺🇸Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
UT Health: The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Medical School
🇺🇸Houston, Texas, United States
Hennepin County Medical Center
🇺🇸Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
🇺🇸Nashville, Tennessee, United States
Eskenazi Health
🇺🇸Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Emory University School of Medicine
🇺🇸Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Carolinas Medical Center
🇺🇸Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
University of Miami Ryder Trauma Center
🇺🇸Miami, Florida, United States
University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics
🇺🇸Iowa City, Iowa, United States
University of Maryland/R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Medical Center
🇺🇸Baltimore, Maryland, United States
University of California San Francisco Medical Center
🇺🇸San Francisco, California, United States
Barnes Jewish Hospital
🇺🇸Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
University of Oklahoma
🇺🇸Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
Penn State University M.S. Hershey Medical Center
🇺🇸Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University
🇺🇸Providence, Rhode Island, United States
Florida Orthopaedic Institute- Tampa General Hospital
🇺🇸Tampa, Florida, United States
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
🇺🇸Bethesda, Maryland, United States
MetroHealth Medical Center
🇺🇸Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center
🇺🇸Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States
St. Louis University Medical Center
🇺🇸Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
San Antonio Miliary Medical Center
🇺🇸Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
🇺🇸Madison, Wisconsin, United States
University of Mississippi Medical Center
🇺🇸Jackson, Mississippi, United States