Literature Review on Assessment and Decision-Making in Complex Limb Fracture Management: A Critical Evaluation of Evidence-Based Approaches

Muhammed Monjur Ahmed

Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Barts NHS Health Trust, London, England.

DOI: 10.4236/ojo.2025.156021                

Abstract

Aim: This review aims to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the assessment and management of complex limb trauma, focusing on factors influencing the decision between limb salvage and primary amputation. Method: A structured literature review was conducted using current guidelines and peer-reviewed evidence. Emphasis was placed on initial assessment protocols, validated scoring systems, and multidisciplinary involvement. Clinical assessment tools, imaging modalities, classification systems, and advances in orthopaedic, vascular, and plastic surgical techniques were reviewed to inform best practice. Results: Complex limb trauma, including mangled extremities, presents significant challenges requiring rapid haemorrhage control, neurovascular evaluation, and prioritisation of life-threatening injuries. Imaging with MDCT and angiography supports surgical planning. Scoring systems such as MESS, PSI, and NISSA provide objective assessment but have limitations in predicting outcomes. Successful limb salvage depends on three key tenets: revascularisation, soft tissue coverage, and bone fixation. Techniques such as the Ilizarov method, free flap reconstruction, and endovascular interventions have improved salvage rates. However, primary amputation remains optimal when salvage criteria are unmet, particularly in cases of prolonged ischaemia, severe soft tissue loss, or poor bone stock. Long-term studies show comparable functional outcomes between limb salvage and amputation, with higher psychological benefits but increased complication and rehospitalisation rates associated with salvage. Conclusion: Optimal management of complex limb trauma requires early multidisciplinary involvement and adherence to evidence-based protocols. Scoring systems offer valuable guidance but should not replace clinical judgement. With modern advances in limb reconstruction, salvage is increasingly feasible, yet timely amputation remains appropriate in select cases. Future work should focus on refining decision-making tools and promoting patient-centred care to optimise functional recovery and quality of life.

Keywords

Trauma, Complex Limb Trauma, Limb Salvage, Primary Amputation, Mangled Extremity, Orthopaedics, Trauma, Orthoplastic, Surgery, Outcomes

1. Introduction & Background

Complex limb trauma presents a significant challenge for limb salvage and for achieving outcomes that return patients to their premorbid functional status [1]. A mangled extremity refers to a limb with severe anatomical disruption to bone, nerve, muscle, vasculature and/or soft tissues [2]. The clinical team must determine whether to proceed with amputation or attempt salvage and reconstruction, a decision supported by clinical assessment, classification systems, evidence-based medicine, and collaboration with multiple allied surgical specialties.

A structured A-E approach to evaluating these injuries is critical to optimising patient outcomes, with management guided by Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) principles [3], including timely transfer to hospitals capable of providing orthoplastic care and the use of validated scoring tools, such as the Injury Severity Score (ISS) [4].

Although management procedures have been well described in earlier research, incorporating predictive analytics—such as AI-powered scoring systems—may be necessary for future advancements in clinical decision-making. This could enable patient-specific outcome forecasting and real-time risk classification, creating new research and application opportunities in the treatment of complex limb injuries.

This paper provides a comprehensive, up-to-date literature review on the assessment of complex limb injuries and the factors influencing the decision between salvage and amputation.

2. Assessment

2.1. Assessment

Complex limb fractures can be distracting during the initial assessment, potentially diverting attention from life-threatening conditions that must take precedence. However, during the primary survey, it is crucial to identify and control haemorrhage from musculoskeletal injuries, as these can contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality [3]. Clinicians must maintain a high index of suspicion for vascular injury, and the measured use of Doppler ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) with angiography can help determine the viability of the limb [5] [6].

Extremity injuries with life-threatening potential include mangled extremities, major arterial haemorrhage, and crush syndrome. Severe soft tissue lacerations and complex long bone fractures may involve major vessels, leading to exsanguinating haemorrhage. Direct pressure, timely application of a tourniquet, and splinting play a critical role in haemorrhage control by minimising movement, promoting vessel tamponade, encouraging clot formation, and reducing ongoing blood loss [3] [7]-[9].

2.2. Key Assessment Factors

A thorough clinical evaluation is essential for assessing complex limb injuries, including documentation of perfusion (distal capillary refill time and distal pulses), sensation, and motor function (neurovascular status) both pre- and post-reduction of a fracture, if required [10]. Research by Hafez et al. demonstrated that patients with neurovascular deficits or signs of compartment syndrome on initial assessment had an increased risk of amputation [11].

Realignment of displaced fractures using evidence-based methods, with the measured use of sedation, muscle relaxants, and analgesia, is required—particularly realignment of a deformed, pale, and pulseless limb—as this can often restore circulation [12] [13]. In scenarios where revascularisation does not occur, urgent surgical placement of a temporary intravascular shunt and skeletal stabilisation (also known as Damage Control Orthopaedics (DCO)) with an external fixation device is recommended [7] [12] [14] [15].

If the fracture is open, medical photography is vital prior to the application of temporary fixation, such as a back slab, to assist in discussions with the plastic surgery team regarding reconstruction following fracture fixation. Initial wound management involves the removal of gross contamination, followed by the application of saline-soaked gauze and an occlusive film, in accordance with British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) guidelines. Intravenous antibiotics should be administered by the prehospital team, ideally within one hour, alongside tetanus prophylaxis where appropriate, provided there is no history of neurological complications or hypersensitivity to the vaccine [3]. These steps are crucial and have therefore been standardised in both the BOAST and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the initial assessment of complex limb trauma [16] [17].

2.3. Red Flags

In patients with complex limb injuries, the trauma team should maintain a high index of suspicion for compartment syndrome [16]. Patients may present with pain out of proportion to the injury, pain on passive extension, and changes in the neurology of the extremity. Immediate removal of any circumferential dressings and elevation of the limb are key. Definitive treatment may be required with fasciotomy to relieve pressure within the muscular compartments [17].

In patients with a crush mechanism or difficult extrication involving prolonged immobilisation, rhabdomyolysis must be ruled out, indicated by the presence of “cola-coloured” urine and/or an elevated creatine kinase (CK) level. Empirical fluid resuscitation to prevent acute kidney injury (AKI) is recommended during the initial assessment [18].

In addition, assessment for associated systemic injuries is essential, including the identification of life-threatening injuries through multiple serial examinations, if required.

2.4. Primary Adjuncts & Imaging Modalities

Radiological evaluation is essential for surgical treatment planning. X-ray remains the first-line imaging modality for fracture assessment; however, it is limited to a single two-dimensional view and does not provide information on soft tissue status or viability. Therefore, multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) is now the first-line modality for surgical planning, as it offers a detailed assessment of fracture delineation. When combined with angiography, MDCT enables comprehensive evaluation of vascular integrity, aiding in the identification of compromised blood flow and determining the need for revascularisation [16] [19].

Moreover, MDCT is readily available in all trauma centres across the United Kingdom, compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is less frequently available and seldom used for soft tissue assessment in the acute stage of complex limb fractures. CT angiography is also utilised to assess vessel perforators and to determine the viability of potential free flap reconstruction in limb salvage cases [16].

2.5. Classification Systems

Complex limb injuries typically result from high-energy trauma, such as motor vehicle accidents, falls from height or blunt injury. These injuries often involve multiple surrounding structures, including bone, soft tissues, nerves and blood vessels. Thus, BOAST should be adhered to; these include guidelines on the management of open fractures, peripheral nerve injuries and arterial injuries associated with fractures and dislocations [12] [15] [20].

Predictive scoring systems have been developed to reduce unnecessary amputations and improve decision-making.

The Gustilo-Anderson (GA) open fracture classification categorises injury, based on soft tissue damage post-debridement, contamination and underlying vascular injury [21] [22], but has poor sensitivity and specificity in predicting outcomes [23]. The Predictive Salvage Index (PSI) assess vascular injury severity and the viability of muscle, bone and skin injury, providing additional guidance on salvageability [22]-[24]. The Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS), which evaluates ischemia, shock, patient characteristics, bone and soft tissue damage for complex limb fractures [6], remains widely used, with scores ≥7 strongly predicting the need for amputation [25]-[30]. Further refinements by McNamara et al., such as Nerve Injury, Ischemia, Soft-tissue injury, Skeletal Injury, Shock and Age of Patient score (NISSA) incorporate neurological assessment, particularly plantar sensation [31]. However, subsequent research challenges its prognostic value [10] [32].

Factors included in the different scoring systems is shown in Table 1 and should all be considered in decision making for limb salvage vs amputation. While scoring systems offer valuable insights, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines [7] emphasise they should not be the sole determinant in treatment decisions. Instead, a multidisciplinary approach ensures optimal outcomes, while minimising complications [7] [32]-[34].

Table 1. Source akgun demir and karsidag, 2020 [35].

	MESI	MESS	PSI	LSI	NISSSA	GHOISS
Age	+	+			+	+
Shock	+	+			+	+
Warm Ischaemia Time	+	+	+	+	+	+
Bone Injury	+		+	+		+
Muscle Injury			+	+		+
Skin Injury	+			+		+
Nerve Injury	+			+	+
Deep Vein Injury				+
Skeletal/Soft Tissue		+			+
Contamination					+	+
Time to treatment	+			+
Co-morbidity	+					+

In general, these systems provide broad risk stratification but fail to capture patient-specific variables (e.g., comorbidities, social circumstances) that significantly impact outcomes. Therefore, clinical judgment must always supplement scoring system guidance [32]-[34].

Classification System	Advantages	Limitations
Gustilo-Anderson Classification	Simple to use Widely adopted internationally Assists in guiding antibiotic therapy and timing of surgery Provides a framework for team communication	High interobserver variability Classification occurs only post-debridement Limited prognostic accuracy for functional outcomes Does not dynamically assess soft tissue viability
Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS)	Good sensitivity for predicting the need for amputation when scores ≥7 Rapid and simple calculation Helpful in initial triage Correlates with overall injury severity	Poor specificity May overpredict the need for amputation in younger or healthier patients Subjective ischemia assessment Does not incorporate advances in modern revascularisation techniques
Nerve Injury, Ischaemia, Soft-tissue injury, Skeletal Injury, Shock, Age of Patient (NISSA) Score	Includes neurological evaluation (plantar sensation) Offers a detailed assessment of limb viability Highlights the multifactorial nature of complex injuries	Subjective neurological assessments Sensitivity to patient consciousness and swelling Limited external validation Early scoring may be unreliable as injuries evolve
Predictive Salvage Index (PSI)	Provides detailed anatomical evaluation Specifically assesses vascular, bone, muscle, and skin damage Useful in multidisciplinary discussions and planning	Limited validation Primarily designed for arterial injuries Reduced predictive value in mixed-mechanism trauma Variable performance across injury patterns
Limb Salvage Index (LSI)	Focuses on arterial injury severity and ischaemia time Integrates vascular injury assessment with overall limb viability Beneficial in military and high-energy trauma settings	Poorly validated in civilian trauma Underestimated revascularisation times Less applicable to polytrauma patients with significant systemic factors
Ganga Hospital Open Injury Severity Score (GHOISS)	Specialised for grading open lower limb fractures Correlates well with salvage versus amputation decisions Considers wound contamination, size, and soft tissue loss	Complex to apply Specific to lower limb injuries Requires significant training for consistent use Less familiar outside orthoplastic trauma centres.
MESS-Modified Scores (e.g., MESS-2012 updates)	Attempts to modernise original MESS criteria Includes advances in fasciotomy and vascular repair techniques More nuanced evaluation of ischaemia	Retains elements of subjectivity Limited validation in large cohorts May not fully overcome the original limitations of the MESS system

3. Management

3.1. Limb Salvage: Perspective from Specialties

Limb salvage is favoured when three key tenets are present: successful revascularisation, adequate soft tissue coverage, and the possibility of bone fixation [36]. Advancements and increased knowledge across all allied specialties have significantly improved the likelihood of achieving these objectives [37].

The Ilizarov method of external fixation is commonly employed to treat complex limb fractures by facilitating bone lengthening, promoting soft tissue reconstruction, and enabling osteosynthesis [38]. Ilizarov [39] outlined the basic principles of this technique: the external fixation device allows for early limb function and loading, continuous control of callus formation, gradual lengthening, correction of complex fractures, and the application of tension stress, which stimulates biosynthetic activity within tissues. Additionally, this method minimises blood loss and is less aggressive towards soft tissues [40]-[43]. Furthermore, advances in other areas of orthopaedics, such as bone transport, bone grafting, plating, intramedullary nailing, and joint replacement, have improved the ability to achieve stable fixation of complex fractures [43] [44].

The simultaneous exposure of tissue and bone presents specific management challenges. Consequently, the armamentarium of the plastic surgeon has expanded to include a wide range of techniques, from primary wound closure to free tissue transfer, guided by the principles of the reconstructive ladder [45]-[48], wound anatomy, wound physiology, prognostic biomarkers, and the phases of wound healing [49]. As the complexity of fractures targeted for salvage has increased, more sophisticated plastic surgical techniques have been developed to optimise outcomes [50]. Crucially, achieving soft tissue coverage is vital to prevent deep infection, including infection of orthopaedic implants. Even in extensive soft tissue defects, the introduction of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) has supported wound management, prepared wounds for further reconstructive surgery, and reduced infection risk, making it a valuable tool in the treatment of Gustilo-Anderson type IIIb fractures with major soft tissue loss, thus aiding limb salvage [51]-[57].

Early primary vessel repair using microsurgical techniques, vein grafts, arteriovenous (AV) loop formations, and endovascular interventions are key to vascular salvage and to reducing ischaemia-related complications that can lead to secondary amputation [58]-[60].

Overall, the resources and skills now available to major trauma teams have greatly expanded, resulting in an increased number of successful limb salvage attempts that historically would have necessitated amputation. Furthermore, the accumulated experience of specialist clinicians in assessing complex limb fractures supports more measured and informed decision-making [6] [61] [62].

3.2. Primary Amputation

In certain cases, primary amputation is the preferred course of action if the three tenets of limb salvage are not achieved [60]-[63]. Prolonged ischaemia leads to irreversible tissue necrosis; significantly large wounds increase the risk of infection; and complex or extensive limb fractures result in poor outcomes due to the inability to achieve adequate fixation, often owing to reduced bone stock.

A retrospective study by Wenhao et al. involving thirty-five patients with Grade IIIc lower limb injuries found that limb salvage was initially successful in twenty-three patients (66%); however, twelve patients (34%) ultimately underwent secondary amputation. Their findings indicated that a MESS of seven or greater, prolonged limb ischaemia, complex limb fractures, and the presence of compartment syndrome were associated with an increased risk of secondary amputation. Consequently, the MESS serves as a highly prognostic tool, and clinical decision-making should be carefully reconsidered in patients with a MESS of seven or above to ensure optimal management outcomes [64].

Additionally, factors associated with poor outcomes—such as non-union, wound infection, and osteomyelitis—as well as those increasing the risk of rehospitalisation, including limited patient education, low socio-economic status, inadequate social support, low self-efficacy, and smoking, should be carefully considered during the decision-making process [65].

Importantly, amputation should not be regarded as a failure of treatment, and this information must be clearly communicated to the patient, particularly when adjuncts to delay surgery are available [66] [67].

3.3. Longterm Functional Outcomes and Rehabilitation

Numerous studies [62] [63] [65] [68] [69] investigating the outcomes of reconstruction versus amputation have shown that, at two years, there is no significant difference in self-reported health status. However, patients who undergo limb salvage tend to experience better psychological outcomes [70].

A study by Michael et al. [66] demonstrated that, after a period of adjustment, patients who underwent amputation achieved functional outcomes comparable to those who successfully salvaged their limbs. Nonetheless, predictors of poorer outcomes included rehospitalisation for major complications, such as secondary amputation. Additionally, patients who underwent limb salvage, compared to those who had a primary amputation, were more likely to be rehospitalised (47.6% vs 33.9%, p = 0.002] and had a slightly greater proportion returning to work by two years (53.0% vs 49.4%).

The journey towards complete limb salvage and a return to pre-injury status can be arduous, with significant complications and increased morbidity across physical, financial, psychological, and social domains [55] [71]-[73]. Therefore, it is crucial to ‘Get It Right the First Time’ (GIRFT) through a thorough, multidisciplinary assessment of complex limb fractures.

4. Conclusions

The assessment and management of complex limb fractures require a multidisciplinary [74], evidence-based approach that balances the potential for limb salvage against the risks of prolonged recovery, complications, and functional impairment. Scoring systems such as MESS, PSI, and NISSA offer objective guidance but have limitations and must be complemented by experienced clinical judgement [59].

Advancements in orthopaedic fixation, vascular repair, and reconstructive surgery have improved salvage rates. However, early amputation remains appropriate when salvage attempts risk worsening morbidity or delaying rehabilitation. Long-term functional outcomes between limb salvage and primary amputation are often comparable, particularly when rehabilitation is optimised early.

Future research should prioritise:

• The creation of dynamic, real-time predictive models employing machine learning to better stratify salvage versus amputation outcomes.

• The establishment of national trauma registries to collect large datasets on limb salvage attempts and outcomes

• Investigation into patient-centred rehabilitation protocols that address both physical and psychological healing

• Enhanced collaboration between orthoplastic units to develop standardised care pathways, based on patient demographics and the severity of injuries

A patient-centred, data-driven decision-making framework could fundamentally reshape the management of complex limb injuries, ensuring individualised and equitable care.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Kouzelis, A., Balasis, S.B., Bavelou, A., Lampropoulos, G.C., Antoniadou, E., Athanasiou, V., et al. (2021) A Case of Reconstruction of a Type IIIC Open Tibial Fracture with Bone Loss and Warm Ischemia Time of 13 Hours: Quality of Life and Review of the Literature. American Journal of Case Reports, 22, e929993.
[2]	Qureshi, M.K., Ghaffar, A., Tak, S. and Khaled, A. (2020) Limb Salvage versus Amputation: A Review of the Current Evidence. Cureus, 12, c38. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.10092
[3]	American College of Surgeons (2018) Advanced Trauma Life Support: Tenth Edition. American College of Surgeons.
[4]	Baker, S.P., Oʼneill, B., Haddon, W. and Long, W.B. (1974) The Injury Severity Score. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 14, 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-197403000-00001
[5]	Donnelly, L. and Mills, H.J. (2024) Clinical Assessment and Factors Influencing Treatment Strategy and Outcomes in Complex Limb Injuries. Cureus, 16, e73347. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.73347
[6]	Serlis, A., Sgardelis, P., Vampertzis, T., Rizavas, K., Poulios, P. and Konstantopoulos, G. (2025) Complex Limb Injuries: Limb Salvage versus Amputation—A Mini Review and Meta‐Analysis. Advances in Orthopedics, 2025, Article 2884802. https://doi.org/10.1155/aort/2884802
[7]	National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2016) Fractures (Complex): Assessment and Management. NICE Guideline NG37. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng37/chapter/Recommendations
[8]	Inaba, K., Siboni, S., Resnick, S., Zhu, J., Wong, M.D., Haltmeier, T., et al. (2015) Tourniquet Use for Civilian Extremity Trauma. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 79, 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000000747
[9]	Teixeira, P.G.R., Brown, C.V.R., Emigh, B., Long, M., Foreman, M., Eastridge, B., et al. (2018) Civilian Prehospital Tourniquet Use Is Associated with Improved Survival in Patients with Peripheral Vascular Injury. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 226, 769-776.E1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.01.047
[10]	Bosse, M.J., McCarthy, M.L., Jones, A.L., Webb, L.X., Sims, S.H., Sanders, R.W., et al. (2005) The Insensate Foot Following Severe Lower Extremity Trauma. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 87, 2601-2608. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.c.00671
[11]	Hafez, H.M., Woolgar, J. and Robbs, J.V. (2001) Lower Extremity Arterial Injury: Results of 550 Cases and Review of Risk Factors Associated with Limb Loss. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 33, 1212-1219. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2001.113982
[12]	British Orthopaedic Association (2021) BOAST: Peripheral Nerve Injury. https://www.boa.ac.uk/resource/boast-peripheral-nerve-injury.html
[13]	Roberts, C.S., Pape, H., Jones, A.L., Malkani, A.L., Rodriguez, J.L. and Giannoudis, P.V. (2005) Damage Control Orthopaedics. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 87, 434-449. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200502000-00030
[14]	Wlodarczyk, J.R., Thomas, A.S., Schroll, R., Campion, E.M., Croyle, C., Menaker, J., et al. (2018) To Shunt or Not to Shunt in Combined Orthopedic and Vascular Extremity Trauma. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 85, 1038-1042. https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000002065
[15]	British Orthopaedic Association (2017) BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOASTs). https://www.boa.ac.uk/standards-guidance/boasts/trauma-boasts.html
[16]	Lugo-Fagundo, C., Lugo-Fagundo, E., Chu, L.C., Fishman, E.K. and Rowe, S.P. (2023) Cinematic Rendering in the Evaluation of Complex Vascular Injury of the Lower Extremities: How We Do It. Emergency Radiology, 30, 791-799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-023-02178-x
[17]	McQueen, M.M., Gaston, P. and Court-Brown, C.M. (2000) Acute Compartment Syndrome. Who Is at Risk? The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 82, 200-203. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.82b2.0820200
[18]	Cleveland Clinic (2023) Rhabdomyolysis: Symptoms, Causes, Treatment, and Prevention. Cleveland Clinic. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21184-rhabdomyolysis#management-and-treatment
[19]	Rozen, W.M., Ashton, M.W. and Taylor, G.I. (2008) Reviewing the Vascular Supply of the Anterior Abdominal Wall: Redefining Anatomy for Increasingly Refined Surgery. Clinical Anatomy, 21, 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20585
[20]	British Orthopaedic Association (2020) BOAST 6: Open Fractures. British Orthopaedic Association. https://www.boa.ac.uk/resource/boast-6-pdf.html
[21]	Gustilo, R.B., Mendoza, R.M. and Williams, D.N. (1984) Problems in the Management of Type III (Severe) Open Fractures. A New Classification of Type III Open Fractures. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 24, 742-746. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-198408000-00009
[22]	Papakostidis, C., Kanakaris, N.K., Pretel, J., Faour, O., Morell, D.J. and Giannoudis, P.V. (2011) Prevalence of Complications of Open Tibial Shaft Fractures Stratified as per the Gustilo-Anderson Classification. Injury, 42, 1408-1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.015
[23]	Rajasekaran, S., Babu, J.N., Dheenadhayalan, J., Shetty, A.P., Sundararajan, S.R., Kumar, M., et al. (2006) A Score for Predicting Salvage and Outcome in Gustilo Type-IIIA and Type-IIIB Open Tibial Fractures. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 88, 1351-1360. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.88b10.17631
[24]	Howe Jr., H.R., Poole Jr., G.V., Hansen, K.J., Clark, T., Plonk, G.W., Koman, L.A., et al. (1987) Salvage of Lower Extremities Following Combined Orthopedic and Vascular Trauma: A Predictive Salvage Index. The American Surgeon, 53, 205-208.
[25]	Russell, W.L., Sailors, D.M., Whittle, T.B., Fisher, D.F. and Burns, R.P. (1991) Limb Salvage versus Traumatic Amputation A Decision Based on a Seven-Part Predictive Index. Annals of Surgery, 213, 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199105000-00013
[26]	Venkatadass, K., Grandhi, T.S.P. and Rajasekaran, S. (2017) Use of Ganga Hospital Open Injury Severity Scoring for Determination of Salvage versus Amputation in Open Type IIIB Injuries of Lower Limbs in Children—An Analysis of 52 Type IIIB Open Fractures. Injury, 48, 2509-2514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.09.010
[27]	Honeybul, S. and Ho, K.M. (2016) Predicting Long-Term Neurological Outcomes after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Requiring Decompressive Craniectomy: A Comparison of the CRASH and IMPACT Prognostic Models. Injury, 47, 1886-1892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.04.017
[28]	Hsieh, Y., Lee, M., Hsu, C., Chen, S., Lin, Y., Lin, C., et al. (2022) Popliteal Artery Injury after Fracture and/or Dislocation of the Knee: Risk Stratification for Revascularization Outcome. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 88, S50-S55. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000003076
[29]	Schirò, G.R., Sessa, S., Piccioli, A. and Maccauro, G. (2015) Primary Amputation vs Limb Salvage in Mangled Extremity: A Systematic Review of the Current Scoring System. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 16, Article No. 372. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0832-7
[30]	Helfet, D.L., Howey, T., Sanders, R. and Johansen, K. (1990) Limb Salvage Versus Amputation. Preliminary Results of the Mangled Extremity Severity Score. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 256, 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199007000-00013
[31]	McNamara, M.G., Heckman, J.D. and Corley, F.G. (1994) Severe Open Fractures of the Lower Extremity. A Retrospective Evaluation of the Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS). Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 8, 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199404000-00001
[32]	Momoh, A.O., Kumaran, S., Lyons, D., Venkatramani, H., Ramkumar, S., Chung, K.C., et al. (2015) An Argument for Salvage in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma with Posterior Tibial Nerve Injury. The Ganga Hospital Experience. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 136, 1337-1352. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001814
[33]	Kotsougiani-Fischer, D., Fischer, S., Warszawski, J., Gruetzner, P.A., Reiter, G., Hirche, C., et al. (2021) Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Patients with Complex Extremity Defects: A Retrospective Analysis of Treatment Recommendations and Prognostic Factors for Non-Implementation. BMC Surgery, 21, Article No. 168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01169-4
[34]	Bosse, M.J., MacKenzie, E.J., Kellam, J.F., Burgess, A.R., Webb, L.X., Swiontkowski, M.F., et al. (2001) A Prospective Evaluation of the Clinical Utility of the Lower-Extremity Injury-Severity Scores. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 83, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200101000-00002
[35]	Akgun Demir, I. and Karsidag, S. (2020) Scoring Systems in Major Extremity Traumas. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Limb%20Amputation&publication_year=2020&
[36]	Stefano, L., Giovanni, R., Pietro, D.F., Matteo, O., Lara, L. and Nicola, F. (2022) Which Is the Best Score and Classification System for Complex Injuries of the Limbs? Some Recommendations Based on a Systematic Literature Review. European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 45, 551-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-021-01901-6
[37]	Gopal, S., Giannoudis, P.V., Murray, A., Matthews, S.J. and Smith, R.M. (2004) The Functional Outcome of Severe, Open Tibial Fractures Managed with Early Fixation and Flap Coverage. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 86, 861-867. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.86b6.13400
[38]	Lee, D.K., Duong, E.T.A. and Chang, D.G. (2010) The Ilizarov Method of External Fixation: Current Intraoperative Concepts. AORN Journal, 91, 326-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2009.11.064
[39]	Gubin, A.V., Borzunov, D.Y. and Malkova, T.A. (2013) The Ilizarov Paradigm: Thirty Years with the Ilizarov Method, Current Concerns and Future Research. International Orthopaedics, 37, 1533-1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1935-0
[40]	Court-Brown, C.M., Heckman, J.D., McQueen, M.M., Ricci, W.M., Tornetta, P. and McKee, M.D. (2015) Rockwood and Green’s Fractures in Adults. 8th Edition, Wolters Kluwer Health.
[41]	Spiegelberg, B., Parratt, T., Dheerendra, S., Khan, W., Jennings, R. and Marsh, D. (2010) Ilizarov Principles of Deformity Correction. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 92, 101-105. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588410x12518836439326
[42]	Gessmann, J., Baecker, H., Jettkant, B., Muhr, G. and Seybold, D. (2011) Direct and Indirect Loading of the Ilizarov External Fixator: The Effect on the Interfragmentary Movements and Compressive Loads. Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction, 6, 27-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11751-011-0103-6
[43]	Achten, J., Parsons, N.R., McGuinness, K.R., Petrou, S., Lamb, S.E. and Costa, M.L. (2015) UK Fixation of Distal Tibia Fractures (UK FixDT): Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial of ‘locking’ Plate Fixation versus Intramedullary Nail Fixation in the Treatment of Adult Patients with a Displaced Fracture of the Distal Tibia. BMJ Open, 5, e009162. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009162
[44]	Devendra, A., Velmurugesan, P.S., Dheenadhayalan, J., Venkatramani, H., Sabapathy, S.R. and Rajasekaran, S. (2019) One-Bone Forearm Reconstruction. A Salvage Solution for the Forearm with Massive Bone Loss. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 101, e74. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.18.01235
[45]	Schultz, R.J. (2012) Robert Jones and the Evolution of External Fixation. Iowa Orthopedic Journal, 32, 196-200.
[46]	Tintle, S.M. and Levin, L.S. (2013) The Reconstructive Microsurgery Ladder in Orthopaedics. Injury, 44, 376-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.01.006
[47]	De Francesco, F., Zingaretti, N., Parodi, P.C. and Riccio, M. (2023) The Evolution of Current Concept of the Reconstructive Ladder in Plastic Surgery: The Emerging Role of Translational Medicine. Cells, 12, Article 2567. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12212567
[48]	Adam, C. and Gascoigne, S.F. (2021) Reconstructive ladder. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/reconstructive-ladder
[49]	Shimbo, K., Shinomiya, R., Sunagawa, T. and Adachi, N. (2023) Risk Assessment in Delayed Free Flap Reconstruction for Severe Lower Extremity Trauma. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 33, 2515-2523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03467-w
[50]	Messner, J., Harwood, P., Johnson, L., Itte, V., Bourke, G. and Foster, P. (2020) Lower Limb Paediatric Trauma with Bone and Soft Tissue Loss: Ortho-Plastic Management and Outcome in a Major Trauma Centre. Injury, 51, 1576-1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.059
[51]	Faris, I.B., Raptis, S. and Fitridge, R. (1997) Arterial Injury in the Lower Limb from Blunt Trauma. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 67, 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1997.tb01889.x
[52]	Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z., Newton, K., Dumville, J.C., Costa, M.L., Norman, G. and Bruce, J. (2018) Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Open Traumatic Wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 7, CD012522. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012522.pub2
[53]	Smolle, M.A., Andreou, D., Tunn, P. and Leithner, A. (2019) Advances in Tumour Endoprostheses: A Systematic Review. EFORT Open Reviews, 4, 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180081
[54]	Kim, Y.H., Hwang, K.T., Kim, J.T. and Kim, S.W. (2015) What Is the Ideal Interval between Dressing Changes during Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Open Traumatic Fractures? Journal of Wound Care, 24, 536-542. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2015.24.11.536
[55]	Abou Ali, A.N., Salem, K.M., Alarcon, L.H., Bauza, G., Pikoulis, E., Chaer, R.A., et al. (2017) Vascular Shunts in Civilian Trauma. Frontiers in Surgery, 4, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2017.00039
[56]	Liao, Y., Fan, C., Zhang, H., Wang, Y. and Zhao, H. (2022) Advances in Microsurgical Techniques for Extremity Reconstruction: A Review. Frontiers in Surgery, 9, Article 970259.
[57]	Godina, M. (1986) Early Microsurgical Reconstruction of Complex Trauma of the Extremities. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 78, 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198609000-00001
[58]	Elswick, S.M., Miglani, A. and Lettieri, S.C. (2019) Medial Approach to the Peroneal Vessels as Recipients for Free Flap Reconstruction of the Leg. Microsurgery, 40, 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30462
[59]	Brumberg, R.S., Kaelin, L.D., Derosier, L.C. and Hutchinson, H. (2021) Early Results of Supporting Free Flap Coverage of Mangled Lower Extremities with Long Saphenous Arteriovenous Loop Grafts. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 71, 181-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2020.07.056
[60]	Lee, C.H., Chang, Y.J., Li, T.S., Chen, Y.C. and Hsieh, Y.K. (2022) Vascular Trauma in the Extremities: Factors Associated with the Outcome and Assessment of Amputation Indexes. Acta Cardiological Sinica, 38, 455-463.
[61]	Souza, J.M., Wade, S.M., Harrington, C.J. and Potter, B.K. (2020) Functional Limb Restoration through Amputation: Minimizing Pain and Optimizing Function with the Use of Advanced Amputation Techniques. Annals of Surgery, 273, e108-e113. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003942
[62]	Frisvoll, C., Clarke-Jenssen, J., Madsen, J.E., Flugsrud, G., Frihagen, F., Andreassen, G.S., et al. (2019) Long-Term Outcomes after High-Energy Open Tibial Fractures: Is a Salvaged Limb Superior to Prosthesis in Terms of Physical Function and Quality of Life? European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 29, 899-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02382-x
[63]	Doukas, W.C., Hayda, R.A., Frisch, H.M., Andersen, R.C., Mazurek, M.T., Ficke, J.R., et al. (2013) The Military Extremity Trauma Amputation/limb Salvage (METALS) Study. Outcomes of Amputation Versus Limb Salvage Following Major Lower-Extremity Trauma. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 95, 138-145. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.k.00734
[64]	MacKenzie, E.J. and Bosse, M.J. (2006) Factors Influencing Outcome Following Limb-Threatening Lower Limb Trauma: Lessons Learned from the Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP). Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 14, S205-S210. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200600001-00044
[65]	Song, W., Zhou, D. and Dong, J. (2017) Predictors of Secondary Amputation in Patients with Grade IIIC Lower Limb Injuries. A Retrospective Analysis of 35 Patients Medicine, 96, e7068. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000007068
[66]	Bosse, M.J., MacKenzie, E.J., Kellam, J.F., Burgess, A.R., Webb, L.X., Swiontkowski, M.F., et al. (2002) An Analysis of Outcomes of Reconstruction or Amputation after Leg-Threatening Injuries. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1924-1931. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa012604
[67]	Sharrock, M. (2021) The Mangled Extremity: Assessment, Decision Making and Outcomes. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, 87, 755-760. https://doi.org/10.52628/87.4.22
[68]	Harris, A.M., Althausen, P.L., Kellam, J., Bosse, M.J. and Castillo, R. (2009) Complications Following Limb-Threatening Lower Extremity Trauma. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 23, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0b013e31818e43dd
[69]	van Dongen, T.T.C.F., Huizinga, E.P., de Kruijff, L.G.M., van der Krans, A.C., Hoogendoorn, J.M., Leenen, L.P.H., et al. (2017) Amputation: Not a Failure for Severe Lower Extremity Combat Injury. Injury, 48, 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.12.001
[70]	MacKenzie, E.J. (2005) Long-term Persistence of Disability Following Severe Lower-Limb Traumaresults of a Seven-Year Follow-Up. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), 87, Article 1801.
[71]	Akula, M., Gella, S., Shaw, C.J., McShane, P. and Mohsen, A.M. (2011) A Meta-Analysis of Amputation versus Limb Salvage in Mangled Lower Limb Injuries—The Patient Perspective. Injury, 42, 1194-1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.05.003
[72]	MacKenzie, E.J., Castillo, R.C., Jones, A.S., Bosse, M.J., Kellam, J.F., Pollak, A.N., et al. (2007) Health-Care Costs Associated with Amputation or Reconstruction of a Limb-Threatening Injury. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 89, 1685-1692. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.f.01350
[73]	Kloen, P., Prasarn, M.L. and Helfet, D.L. (2012) Management of the Mangled Extremity. Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction, 7, 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11751-012-0137-4
[74]	Silluzio, N., De Santis, V., Marzetti, E., Piccioli, A., Rosa, M.A. and Maccauro, G. (2019) Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Patients Operated for Complex Open Tibial Pilon Fractures. Injury, 50, S24-S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.041