Humerus fracture and combined venous injury increases limb loss in axillary or subclavian artery injury

Abstract

Objective

Axillosubclavian vessel injury is rare, with most cases occurring after penetrating trauma. A prior database (2002–2006) analysis demonstrated an overall limb loss rate of 2.9%, with no difference between isolated arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury and combined artery/vein axillosubclavian vessel injury. Given increases in advanced vascular surgical techniques, as well as improved multidisciplinary care and expeditious diagnosis with computed tomography angiography, we hypothesized the national rate of limb loss in patients with arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury has decreased. In addition, we attempted to identify current predictors for limb loss in arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury. Finally, we hypothesized that combined artery/vein axillosubclavian vessel injury, as well as associated brachial plexus injury will have a higher risk for limb-loss and mortality compared to isolated arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank was performed between 2007 and 2015. All patients ≥ 18 years of age with arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury were included. The primary outcome was limb loss. After a univariable logistic regression model identified significant covariates, we performed a multivariable logistic regression for analysis.

Results

Of the total 5,494,609 trauma admissions, 3807 patients had arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury (<0.1%). Of these, 3137 (82.4%) had isolated arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury and 670 (17.6%) had combined artery/vein axillosubclavian vessel injury. The overall limb loss rate was 2.4% (from 2.9% in 2006, p = 0.47). After adjusting for covariates, independent risk factors for limb loss included a combined artery/vein axillosubclavian vessel injury (odds ratio = 3.54, confidence interval = 2.06–6.11, p < 0.001), blunt mechanism (odds ratio = 7.81, confidence interval = 4.21–14.48, p < 0.001), open repair (odds ratio = 2.37, confidence interval = 1.47–3.82, p < 0.001), and open proximal humerus fracture (odds ratio = 8.50, confidence interval = 4.97–14.54, p < 0.001). An associated brachial plexus injury was not associated with limb loss (p = 0.37). Combined artery/vein axillosubclavian vessel injury was associated with higher risk for mortality compared to isolated arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury (odds ratio = 2.17, confidence interval = 1.73–2.71, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The national rate of limb loss in trauma patients with arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury has not changed in the past decade. A combined artery/vein axillosubclavian vessel injury is an independent risk factor for limb loss, as well as open repair. However, the strongest risk factor is an open proximal humerus fracture. An associated brachial plexus injury is not associated with increased risk of limb loss. Patients with combined artery/vein axillosubclavian vessel injury have a twofold increased risk of death compared to patients with isolated arterial axillosubclavian vessel injury.

Keywords

Axillosubclavian limb loss axillary subclavian trauma amputation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Myers

Harward

Maher

et al . Complex upper extremity vascular trauma in an urban population. J Vasc Surg 1990; 12: 305–309.

Tan

Joglar

Hamburg

et al . Limb outcome and mortality in lower and upper extremity arterial injury. Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 45: 592–597.

Hardin

Jr. O’Connell

Adinolfi

et al . Traumatic arterial injuries of the upper extremity: determinants of disability. Am J Surg 1985; 150: 266–270.

Adinolfi

Hardin

Jr. O’Connell

et al . Amputations after vascular trauma in civilians. South Med J 1983; 76: 1241–1248.

Graham

Mattox

Feliciano

et al . Vascular injuries of the axilla. Ann Surg 1982; 195: 232–238.

Mullenix

Steele

Andersen

et al . Limb salvage and outcomes among patients with traumatic popliteal vascular injury: an analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank. J Vasc Surg 2006; 44: 94–100.

Kalish

Nguyen

Hamburg

et al . Associated venous injury significantly complicates presentation, management, and outcomes of axillosubclavian arterial trauma. Int J Angiol 2012; 21: 217–222.

Demetriades

Chahwan

Gomez

et al . Penetrating injuries to the subclavian and axillary vessels. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 188: 290–295.

Cox

Allen

Fischer

et al . Blunt versus penetrating subclavian artery injury: presentation, injury pattern and outcome. J Trauma Acute Care 1999; 46: 445–449.

10.

Johnson

CA.

Endovascular management of peripheral vascular trauma. Semin Intervent Radiol 2010; 038–043.

11.

Reuben

Whitten

Sarfati

et al . Increasing use of endovascular therapy in acute arterial injuries: analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank. J Vasc Surg 2007; 46: 1222–1226.

12.

Franz

Willette

Wood

et al . A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic screening criteria for blunt cerebrovascular injuries. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 214: 313–327.

13.

Ganapathy

Khouqeer

Todd

et al . Endovascular management for peripheral arterial trauma: the new norm?. Injury 2017; 48: 1025–1030.

14.

Barmparas

Inaba

Teixeira

et al . Epidemiology of post-traumatic limb amputation: a National Trauma Databank analysis. Am Surg 2010; 76: 1214–1222.

15.

Moini

Rasouli

Khaji

et al . Patterns of extremity traumas leading to amputation in Iran: results of Iranian National Trauma Project. Chin J Traumatol 2009; 12: 77–80.

16.

Win

Henderson

Management of traumatic amputations of the upper limb. BMJ 2014; 348: g255.

17.

Buscaglia

Walsh

Wilson

et al . Surgical management of subclavian artery injury. Am J Surg 1987; 154: 88–92.

18.

Xenos

Freeman

Stevens

et al . Covered stents for injuries of subclavian and axillary arteries. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38: 451–454.

19.

DuBose

Savage

Fabian

et al . The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry: multicenter data on modern vascular injury diagnosis, management, and outcomes. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015; 78: 215–222, discussion 222–213.

20.

Moniz

Ombrellaro

Stevens

et al . Concomitant orthopedic and vascular injuries as predictors for limb loss in blunt lower extremity trauma. Am Surg 1997; 63: 24–28.

21.

Topal

Eren

Celik

Lower extremity arterial injuries over a six-year period: outcomes, risk factors, and management. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2010; 6: 1103.

22.

Prichayudh

Verananvattna

Sriussadaporn

et al . Management of upper extremity vascular injury: outcome related to the Mangled Extremity Severity Score. World J Surg 2009; 33: 857–863.

23.

Togawa

Yamami

Nakayama

et al . The validity of the mangled extremity severity score in the assessment of upper limb injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 1516–1519.

24.

Desai

Audige

Suk

Combined orthopedic and vascular lower extremity injuries: sequence of care and outcomes. Am J Orthop 2012; 41: 182–186.

25.

Cakir

Subasi

Erdem

et al . Treatment of vascular injuries associated with limb fractures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2005; 87: 348.

26.

Inaba

Aksoy

Seamon

et al . Multicenter evaluation of temporary intravascular shunt use in vascular trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016; 80: 359–364, discussion 364–355.

27.

Zochodne

Levy

Nitric oxide in damage, disease and repair of the peripheral nervous system. Cell Mol Biol 2005; 51: 255–267.

28.

Aguayo

Peyronnard

Bray

GMA.

Quantitative ultrastructural study of regeneration from isolated proximal stumps of transected unmyelinated nerves. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 1973; 32: 256–270.

29.

Wright

Hagen

Wood

MB.

Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg 1995; 20: 619–622.

30.

Davidson

A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand 2002; 15: 62–70.

31.

Schoppen

Boonstra

Groothoff

et al . Physical, mental, and social predictors of functional outcome in unilateral lower-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2003; 84: 803–811.

32.

Pezzin

Dillingham

Mackenzie

et al . Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 723–729.

33.

Beasley

General considerations in managing upper limb amputations. Orthop Clin North Am 1981; 12: 743–749.

34.

Dillingham

Pezzin

MacKenzie

et al . Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: a long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehab 2001; 80: 563–571.

35.

Burger

Marincek

Isakov

Mobility of persons after traumatic lower limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil 1997; 19: 272–277.

36.

Zaraca

Ponzoni

Stringari

et al . Lower extremity traumatic vascular injury at a level II trauma center: an analysis of limb loss risk factors and outcomes. Minerva Chirurgica 2011; 66: 397–407.