Healing rates and outcomes following closed transmetatarsal amputations: A systematic review and random effects meta‐analysis of proportions

Le résumé fourni par la source

Transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) is a common surgical procedure for addressing severe forefoot pathologies, such as peripheral vascular disease and diabetic foot infections. Variability in research methodologies and findings within the existing literature has hindered a comprehensive understanding of healing rates and complications following TMA. This meta-analysis and systematic review aims to consolidate available evidence, synthesising data from multiple studies to assess healing rates and complications associated with closed TMA procedures. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted for articles published from January 1st, 1988, to June 1st, 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised studies reporting healing rates in non-traumatic transmetatarsal amputation patients with more than 10 participants, excluding open TMAs. Two independent reviewers selected relevant studies, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extracted from eligible studies included patient demographics, healing rates, complications, and study quality. Among 22 studies encompassing 1569 transmetatarsal amputations, the pooled healing rate was 67.3%. Major amputation rates ranged from 0% to 55.6%, with a random-effects pooled rate of 23.9%. Revision rates varied from 0% to 36.4%, resulting in a pooled rate of 14.8%. 30-day mortality ranged from 0% to 9%, with a fixed-effects pooled rate of 2.6%. Post-operative infection rates ranged from 3.0% to 30.7%, yielding a random-effects pooled rate of 16.7%. Dehiscence rates ranged from 1.7% to 60.0%, resulting in a random-effects pooled rate of 28.8%. Future studies should aim for standardised reporting and assess the physiological and treatment factors influencing healing and complications.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.