Transtibial Amputation Outcomes Study

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.

Inclusion Criteria:

- 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

Exclusion Criteria:

- 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