Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aims of this study were to record patient-reported outcomes of treatment of proximal upper extremity amputation injuries and subsequent return to work. A consecutive cohort of 38 patients with a traumatic amputation at or proximal to the carpus had been treated with a replantation or revision (completion) amputation in Tampere University Hospital between 2009 and 2019, and 31 of them participated in this study. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH). Patients reported significant disability indicated by DASH score after replantation (median 30; interquartile range [IQR] 21–47) and revision (completion) amputation (median 33; IQR 16–52). Most patients had cold intolerance and reported low hand function and aesthetics scores. Out of 17 working patients, 10 did not return to their previous work. Our study demonstrates the influence of major upper extremity amputation on daily life activities, even after a successful replantation.

Level of evidence: IV

Keywords

Amputation replantation upper extremity traumatic

Introduction

A major upper extremity amputation, defined as an amputation at or proximal to the carpus (Behrend et al., 2011) is classified as total (division of all structures) or subtotal (fracture or exarticulation with loss of circulation, but with some tissue in-continuity). Replantation and revascularization are established treatments to restore vitality and function (Pierrie et al., 2018). When a replantation is not technically feasible or unsuccessful, the limb is treated by a revision (completion) amputation (Larson et al., 2013). A mechanism of severe avulsion or crush injury, multi-level amputation, extensive soft-tissue or nerve damage, or both, and contamination are all factors associated with fewer replantation attempts (Larson et al., 2013; Nawijn et al., 2020).

The survival proportion after replantation and revascularization is over 85% (Gulgonen and Ozer, 2011; Laing et al., 2012) but the functional outcome is uncertain (Lin et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2020). Recovery from extensive multi-tissue damage and long-distance nervous reinnervation is unpredictable and directly related to the level of the injury (Lin et al., 2012; Otto et al., 2015; Ramji et al., 2020; Resnik et al., 2022). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the most useful assessments for disability and symptoms in musculoskeletal conditions (Makhni, 2021; Motion Group, 2018; Resnik et al., 2017; Weinfurt and Reeve, 2022). However, most previous studies have reported objective results after amputations (Atzei et al., 2005; Battiston et al., 2007; Cavadas et al., 2009; Gulgonen and Ozer, 2011; Hoang et al., 2009; Laing et al., 2012; Leclère et al., 2012; Ramji et al., 2020; Sabapathy et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2020) and there are only a few studies with validated PROMs (Assouline et al., 2017; Mattiassich et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2014; Pet et al., 2016; Resnik et al., 2019, 2020, 2022; Stanger et al., 2015).

The primary aim of this study was to record upper extremity disability and pain, health-related quality of life, cold intolerance and appearance in patients with major upper extremity amputations. The secondary aim was to describe the patients’ return to previous work.

Methods

Study design and setting

In this retrospective descriptive cohort study, we screened all patients who had sustained a traumatic major upper extremity amputation between the years 2009 and 2019. We identified eligible patients using diagnostic and treatment codes from the electronic medical records of Tampere University Hospital, which provides replantation surgery for a referral area with approximately 3 million people. The inclusion criteria were a traumatic injury at or proximal to the carpus, which had caused a fracture or exarticulation, and loss of circulation distal to the injury. During the study period, replantation or revascularization was always done if technically feasible. There were no exclusion criteria.

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Finland.

Participants

All eligible patients were invited to participate in the study. Information about their age, sex, comorbidities, hand dominance, amputation level, injury mechanism, surgical treatment and complications was collected from the hospital’s electronic medical record. The PROMs were sent by mail and non-respondents received two reminders. To describe outcomes between different treatments, we grouped patients into successful replantation/revascularization and revision amputation. The latter group included primary revision (completion) amputation (if replantation was not feasible) and secondary revision amputation after an unsuccessful replantation attempt. Patients were also sorted according to injury level: either distal to the elbow joint or proximal to, or through, the elbow joint.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH), a 30-item generic PROM for upper extremity disability, which is appropriate for patients with traumatic amputations (Giladi et al., 2014). The raw score is converted to a score on a scale of 0–100, in which higher numbers indicate less function and more pain (Hudak et al., 1996). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for DASH is estimated to be 10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7 to 14) (Gummesson et al., 2003). We used a score of 20 as the cut-off value to identify patients with clinically relevant disability, based on the sum of the MCID and population normal values (Aasheim and Finsen, 2013; Gkotsi et al., 2021; Hunsaker et al., 2002).

The secondary outcomes were:

The health-related quality of life was measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L index and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS; from 0, the worst imaginable health state, to 100, the best imaginable health state) (Slobogean et al., 2010). Because Finnish population values are unavailable for the EQ-5D-5L, we used the values from the culturally and socioeconomically similar Danish population in which −0.62 and 1.0 represent the worst and best health statuses possible, respectively (Sørensen et al., 2009).

Cold intolerance was assessed by the Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity (CISS) questionnaire (a scale of 4–100 points, where a higher number indicates worse symptoms) (Irwin et al., 1997). A CISS score of 50 has been determined as the cut-off abnormal value (Carlsson et al., 2010; Stjernbrandt et al., 2021).

Appearance was assessed by the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) aesthetic domain (scale of 0–100, where a higher number indicates better appearance) (Chung et al., 1998).

The patients rated the overall function and appearance in their injured upper extremity on two numeric rating scales (NRS) from 0 to 10 (0 worst, 10 best). We also asked patients to report in free text their most disabling symptom. We classified their answers into one, two or all three of the following categories: pain; functional disability; and an unpleasant appearance. The patients were asked about their working status before injury, return to work and whether they used protheses or gripping aids.

Statistics

We have presented continuous data for patient characteristics as means with standard deviations (SDs), but PROM data as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) as the data for most of these were skewed. By a post hoc power analysis, the sample size would require 35 patients in each group to perceive a 10-point difference in DASH score at a power of 80%, with a standard deviation of 15 points for a two-sided test, at a significance level <0.05. We used previous studies of major upper extremity amputations to estimate variation in DASH scores (Assouline et al., 2017; Mattiassich et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2014; Pet et al., 2016; Resnik et al., 2019; Stanger et al., 2015). Our sample sizes were thus too small for credible statistical testing of differences between the subgroups of patients according to treatment and injury level.

Results

Among 2250 upper extremity amputations during the 11-year study period, we identified 38 patients with an amputation through or proximal to the carpus. All were invited to participate in the study and 31 responded. Of these, 20 patients had a successful replantation, two had a failed replantation and nine had a primary revision. The patient demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. Two patients were aged under 18 years at the time of the accident (range 10–79), but all patients were aged above 18 years at the time of assessment (range 19–84). The median number of secondary operations was 1 (IQR: 0–2) after a successful replantation, 3 (IQR: 2–3) after a failed replantation attempt and 0 (IQR: 0–1) after a primary revision (completion) amputation. Two patients had a revascularization procedure and two patients underwent a secondary revision amputation after a failed replantation attempt. Most secondary operations were related to a soft tissue revision, reconstruction or skin grafting, but there were also some operations for fracture nonunion or malunion. One patient had sepsis after replantation. The patients who were treated with a primary revision amputation had no complications. The minimum follow-up time was 21 months with a mean of 8 years (SD 4). After a revision amputation most patients (7 of 11) used a prosthesis and two patients reported the use of a gripping aid after replantation.

Table 1.

Demographics.

	Replantation/revascularization (n = 20)	Revision amputation (n = 11)
Age at follow-up (years)	47 (19)	47 (20)
Duration of follow-up (years)	9 (4)	7 (4)
Sex
Male	14	8
Female	6	2
Dominant hand involved	13	9
Mechanism of injury
Cut	10	1
Crush	4	3
Avulsion and others	6	7
Amputation type
Total	12	8
Subtotal	8	3
Occupational accident	3	3
Smoking	6	1
Comorbidities
Dyslipidaemia	0	2
Diabetes mellitus	2	1
Arterial hypertension	7	2
Amputation groups
Distal to the elbow joint	16	5
Proximal to the elbow joint	4	6

Data are expressed as n or mean (SD).

The PROM data showed that the patients in both groups had considerable disability (Table 2). In total, 14 patients with a successful replantation and eight with a revision amputation had DASH scores over 20 points. Five patients with a successful replantation and three patients with a revision (completion) amputation had a CISS of more than 50 points.

Table 2.

Treatment outcomes after replantation/revascularization and revision amputation.

	Replantation/revascularization		Revision amputation
	n ^a	Median (IQR)	n ^a	Median (IQR)
Total	20		11
DASH	19	30 (21–47)	11	33 (16–52)
EQ-5D-5L index	20	0.7 (0.6–0.9)	11	0.7 (0.7–0.8)
EQ-VAS	20	75 (50–85)	10	73 (70–80)
CISS	14	33 (29–64)	6	52 (26–57)
MHQ aesthetic domain	17	63 (38–81)	10	47 (27–73)
NRS rating of appearance	20	8 (5–10)	10	8 (5–9)
NRS rating of function	20	6 (3–8)	10	1 (0–8)
Distal to the elbow joint	16		5
DASH	15	30 (21–46)	5	10 (10–22)
EQ-5D-5L index	16	0.8 (0.7–0.9)	5	0.7 (0.7–0.8)
EQ VAS	16	80 (50–85)	5	80 (70–90)
CISS	13	34 (30–67)	3	19 (19–39)
MHQ aesthetics	15	63 (34–84)	5	56 (25–75)
NRS rating of appearance	16	8 (5–10)	5	8 (7–9)
NRS rating of function	16	6 (3–8)	5	8 (0–8)
Proximal to the elbow joint	4		6
DASH	4	35 (18–46)	6	48 (36–53)
EQ-5D-5L index	4	0.6 (0.5–0.7)	6	0.7 (0.7–0.7)
EQ VAS	4	65 (53–76)	5	70 (70–75)
CISS	1	15 (–)	3	55 (52–57)
MHQ aesthetics	2	72 (67–77)	5	38 (31–69)
NRS rating of appearance	4	9 (7–10)	5	6 (5–8)
NRS rating of function	4	6 (2–9)	5	1 (0–1)

There are lower numbers for some outcomes as not all patients completed all items in the patient-reported outcome measures, making calculation of their scores impossible.

CISS: Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity (0–100, in which 0 indicates no symptoms); DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (0–100, in which 0 indicates no disability); EQ-5D index: the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L index value (0–1, in which 1 indicates the best situation); EQ VAS: the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L health state with visual analogue scale value (0–100, in which 100 indicates the best situation); MHQ aesthetic: Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire aesthetic domain (0–100, in which 100 indicates the best situation); NRS: numerical rating scale (0–10, where 10 indicates the best score).

A total of 17 patients (12 with replantations and five revision amputations) answered the open question about their most disabling symptom. In patients treated with replantation, the most disabling symptoms were related to functional disability (10/12), while pain (2/12) and an unpleasant appearance (1/12) were less common issues. In patients treated with revision amputation, the most disabling symptoms were related to functional disability (4/5), pain (2/5) and an unpleasant appearance (3/5). An analysis of individual responses to DASH questions found no specific problems and indicated a wide range of disability issues in both treatment groups. Data on return to previous work are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

The patients’ working status before the amputation and return to work after treatment.

	Replantation/revascularization (n = 20)	Revision amputation (n = 11)
Working patients (n = 17)
Return to the same work	3	4
Return to different work	5	1
Unable to return to work	3	1
Non-working patients (n = 14)
Retired	6	4
Student	2	1
Unemployed	1	0

Discussion

We found that after upper limb amputation, most patients had a major disability, cold intolerance, low hand function and appearance ratings, and incapacity for work regardless of the treatment type.

We used PROMs to quantify outcomes that were most important for the patients. Self-rated measures can, however, be influenced by psychological factors, such as pain catastrophizing or coping with disability. Our use of DASH, a broad and generic PROM that is the most widely used in orthopaedic research to quantify upper extremity function, provided the possibility for comparisons with other amputation studies and to different conditions and injuries. Nevertheless, the DASH does not assess all the problems that may be important to the patients. Therefore, we also included validated PROMs for cold intolerance and aesthetics, and NRS ratings of hand function and appearance.

Previous studies have reported mean DASH scores in the range of 25–75 after a major upper extremity amputation injury (Assouline et al., 2017; Mattiassich et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2014; Pet et al., 2016; Resnik et al., 2019; Stanger et al., 2015). Pet et al. (2016) have reported major upper extremity replantation and prosthetic rehabilitation patients to have mean DASH scores of 25 and 40 points, respectively. Our DASH results agree with those, and our further assessment of the symptoms show that there is much variation in the presentation of symptoms. Otto et al. (2015) conducted a systematic review, which concluded that replantation was associated with better outcomes after a major upper extremity amputation, especially in the domains of global satisfaction and psychological well-being.

Chronic phantom limb pain is common, with a prevalence in the range of 7%–49% after upper extremity amputations (Tintle et al., 2010). In our study, the most disabling symptoms that patients rated in open questions were related to functional disability and only approximately one in four patients reported pain to be the most disabling symptom. However, many patients had abnormal CISS scores (>50) and the assessment of the individual DASH questions showed relatively high scores on the pain items. These findings emphasize the importance of pain-related problems after major upper extremity amputations. Pain is connected with psychological coping and self-confidence (Maddison et al., 2022), in accordance with the participants’ EQ-5D scores in our study.

After a revision amputation, most patients used a prosthesis. Continued use can be considered as a measure of perceived benefit from a prosthesis (Smail et al., 2021). Prosthesis users have reported a better quality of life and higher employment rates when compared with non-users, but the quantity of direct functional benefits of an upper extremity prosthesis is unclear (Kerver et al., 2022; Postema et al., 2016; Resnik et al., 2020; Yamamoto et al., 2019).

Most of the working patients could not return to their previous occupations. Other studies have shown a similar reduction in the ability to work (Assouline et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2014; Pet et al., 2016; Ramji et al., 2020). Thus, major upper extremity amputations cause not only individual disability but also a considerable economic cost to society as a result of reduced ability to work.

The major limitation of our study is the relatively small sample size with heterogeneous injuries, which increases random variation and decreases the generalizability of the study results. Because of the small sample size and non-random allocation into the treatment groups, a direct comparison between the two treatment groups was not justified. However, the aim of this study was to describe patient-rated treatment outcomes of proximal amputation patients, not to compare treatment algorithms. We believe the study size to be reasonable based on the low incidence of these injuries, the consecutive inclusion of all patients within a defined geographical region, and the high participation rate. The Finnish population is covered by free, universal healthcare, which decreases selection bias and increases the generalizability of our results.

In summary, our study shows that major upper extremity amputation had a marked effect on health and abilities in daily life, even after a technically successful replantation. The symptoms related to functional disability were rated the most significant, but pain and aesthetic concerns were also considerable.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The institution of one or more of the authors (JP and JJ) has received, during the study period, partial funding from Tampere University Hospital (MJ006P).

Ethical approval

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Finland. This study was completed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not sought for the present study because according to the directive of the Institutional Review Board it was not needed for this study.

ORCID iDs

Joonas Pyörny

Jarkko Jokihaara

References

Aasheim

Finsen

The DASH and the QuickDASH instruments. Normative values in the general population in Norway. J Hand Surg Eur . 2013, 39: 140–4.

Assouline

Feuvrier

Lepage

Tropet

Obert

Pauchot

Functional assessment and quality of life in patients following replantation of the distal half of the forearm (except fingers): A review of 11 cases. Hand Surg Rehabil. 2017, 36: 261–7.

Atzei

Pignatti

Maria Baldrighi

Maranzano

Cugola

Long-term results of replantation of the proximal forearm following avulsion amputation. Microsurgery. 2005, 25: 293–8.

Battiston

Tos

Clemente

Pontini

Actualities in big segments replantation surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2007, 60: 849–55.

Behrend

Reizner

Marchessault

Hammert

WC.

Update on advances in upper extremity prosthetics. J Hand Surg Am. 2011, 36: 1711–7.

Carlsson

Nilsson

JÅ

Dahlin

LB.

Cut-off value for self-reported abnormal cold sensitivity and predictors for abnormality and severity in hand injuries. J Hand Surg Eur. 2010, 35: 409–16.

Cavadas

Landín

Ibáñez

Temporary catheter perfusion and artery-last sequence of repair in macroreplantations. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2009, 62: 1321–5.

Chung

Pillsbury

Walters

Hayward

RA.

Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998, 23: 575–87.

Giladi

McGlinn

Shauver

Voice

Chung

KC.

Measuring outcomes and determining long-term disability after revision amputation for treatment of traumatic finger and thumb amputation injuries. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014, 134: 746e–55e.

10.

Gkotsi

Bourdon

Robert

Schuind

Normative values of the DASH questionnaire in healthy individuals over 50 years of age. Hand Surg Rehabil. 2021, 40: 258–62.

11.

Gulgonen

Ozer

Long-term results of major upper extremity replantations. J Hand Surg Eur. 2011, 37: 225–32.

12.

Gummesson

Atroshi

Ekdahl

The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: Longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003, 4: 11.

13.

Hoang

Hai

Staudenmaier

Hoehnke

Complete middle forearm amputations after avulsion injuries—microsurgical replantation results in Vietnamese patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2009, 66: 1167–72.

14.

Hudak

Amadio

Bombardier

, et al. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996, 29: 602–8.

15.

Hunsaker

Cioffi

Amadio

Wright

Caughlin

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Outcomes Instruments: Normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002, 84: 208–15.

16.

Irwin

Gilbert

Terenghi

Smith

Green

Cold intolerance following peripheral nerve injury: natural history and factors predicting severity of symptoms. J Hand Surg Br. 1997, 22: 308–16.

17.

Kerver

Karssies

Krabbe

PFM

van der Sluis

Groen

Economic evaluation of upper limb prostheses in the Netherlands including the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip versus standard myoelectric hand prostheses. Disabil Rehabil. 2022, 19: 1–11.

18.

Laing

T. A.

Cassell

O’Donovan

Eadie

Long term functional results from major limb replantations. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2012, 65: 931–4.

19.

Larson

Kung

Cederna

Sears

Urbanchek

Langhals

NB.

Clinical factors associated with replantation after traumatic major upper extremity amputation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013, 132: 911–9.

20.

Leclère

Mathys

Juon

Franz

Unglaub

Vögelin

Macroreplantations of the upper extremity: a series of 11 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012, 132: 1797–805.

21.

Lin

P-Y

Jeng

S-F

Lin

T-S

Hsieh

C-H.

Upper limb replantation. Trauma. 2012, 14: 313–26.

22.

Maddison

Perry

Debono

Psychological sequelae of hand injuries: an integrative review. J Hand Surg Eur. 2022, 48: 33–40.

23.

Makhni

EC.

Meaningful clinical applications of patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021, 103: 84–91.

24.

Mattiassich

Rittenschober

Dorninger

, et al. Long-term outcome following upper extremity replantation after major traumatic amputation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017, 18: 77.

25.

Motion Group. Patient-reported outcomes in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018, 100: 436–42.

26.

Nawijn

Westenberg

Langhammer

Chen

Eberlin

KR.

Factors associated with primary and secondary amputation following limb-threatening upper extremity trauma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020, 145: 987–99.

27.

Kaur

Thoma

Long-term outcomes of major upper extremity replantations. Plast Surg. 2014, 22: 13.

28.

Otto

Kon

Schuurman

van Minnen

LP.

Replantation versus prosthetic fitting in traumatic arm amputations: A systemic review. PLoS One. 2015, 10: e0137729.

29.

Pet

Morrison

Mack

, et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after traumatic upper extremity amputation: Replantation versus prosthetic rehabilitation. Injury. 2016, 47: 2783–8.

30.

Pierrie

Gaston

Loeffler

BJ.

Current concepts in upper-extremity amputation. J Hand Surg Am. 2018, 43: 657–67.

31.

Postema

Bongers

Brouwers

, et al. Upper limb absence: Predictors of work participation and work productivity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016, 97: 892–9.

32.

Ramji

Steve

Premji

Yeung

Functional outcomes of major upper extremity replantation: A scoping review. Plast Reconstr Surg – Glob Open. 2020, 8: e3071.

33.

Resnik

Borgia

Cancio

, et al. Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb Veteran prosthesis users: a normative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022, 44: 2470–81.

34.

Resnik

Borgia

Clark

Function and quality of life of unilateral major upper limb amputees: Effect of prosthesis use and type. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020, 101: 1396–406.

35.

Resnik

Borgia

Silver

Cancio

Systemic review of measures of impairment and activity limitation for persons with upper limb trauma and amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017, 98: 1863–92.e14.

36.

Resnik

Ekerholm

Borgia

Clark

MA.

A national study of Veterans with major upper limb amputation: Survey methods, participants, and summary findings. PLoS One. 2019, 14: e0213578.

37.

Sabapathy

Venkatramani

Bharathi

RR, J D

Bhat

Rajasekaran

Technical considerations and functional outcome of 22 major replantations (The BSSH Douglas Lamb lecture, 2005). J Hand Surg Eur. 2007, 32: 488–501.

38.

Slobogean

Noonan

O’Brien

PJ.

The reliability and validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, EuroQol-5D, Health Utilities Index, and Short Form-6D outcome instruments in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010, 19: 342–8.

39.

Smail

Neal

Wilkins

Packham

TL.

Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021, 16: 821–30.

40.

Sørensen

Davidsen

Gudex

Pedersen

Brønnum-Hansen

Danish EQ-5D population norms. Scand J Public Health. 2009, 37: 467–74.

41.

Stanger

Horch

Dragu

Severe mutilating injuries with complex macroamputations of the upper extremity - is it worth the effort?

World J Emerg Surg. 2015, 10: 30.

42.

Stjernbrandt

Liljelind

Nilsson

Wahlström

Defining abnormal cold sensitivity using the Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity questionnaire: a population study. J Hand Surg Eur. 2021, 46: 731–7.

43.

Tintle

Baechler

Nanos

GPIII

Forsberg

Potter

BK.

Traumatic and trauma-related amputations: Part II: Upper extremity and future directions. J Bone Joint Surg. 2010, 92: 2934–45.

44.

Wang

Askari

Zhang

Lineaweaver

WC.

Long-term outcomes of arm replantation. Ann Plast Surg. 2020, 84: S151–7.

45.

Weinfurt

Reeve

BB.

Patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. JAMA. 2022, 328: 472–3.

46.

Yamamoto

Chung

Sterbenz

, et al. Cross-sectional international multicenter study on quality of life and reasons for abandonment of upper limb prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg – Glob Open. 2019, 7: e2205.

Patient-reported significant disability after major traumatic upper extremity amputation

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study design and setting

Participants

Outcomes

Statistics

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical approval

Informed consent

ORCID iDs

References