A systematic review describing incidence rate and prevalence of dysvascular partial foot amputation; how both have changed over time and compare to transtibial amputation
Dillon et al. Systematic Reviews
A systematic review describing incidence rate and prevalence of dysvascular partial foot amputation; how both have changed over time and compare to transtibial amputation
Michael P Dillon 0
Matthew Quigley 0
Stefania Fatone 1
0 Discipline of Prosthetics and Orthotics, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University , Melbourne 3086 , Australia
1 Northwestern University Prosthetics-Orthotics Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University , 680 N Lake Shore Drive, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60611 , USA
Background: Partial foot amputation (PFA) is a common consequence of advanced peripheral vascular disease. Given the different ways incidence rate and prevalence data have been measured and reported, it is difficult to synthesize data and reconcile variation between studies. As such, there is uncertainty in whether the incidence rates and prevalence of PFA have increased over time compared to the decline in transtibial amputation (TTA). The aims of this systematic review were to describe the incidence rate and prevalence of dysvascular PFA over time, and how these compare to TTA. Method: Databases (i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE, psychINFO, AMED, CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health) were searched using MeSH terms and keywords related to amputation level and incidence rate or prevalence. Original research published in English from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2015 were independently appraised, and data extracted, by two reviewers. The McMaster Critical Review Forms were used to assess methodological quality and bias. Results were reported as narrative summaries given heterogeneity of the literature and included the weighted mean annual incidence rate and 95% confidence interval. Results: Twenty two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty one reported incidence rate data for some level of PFA; four also included a TTA cohort. One study reported prevalence data for a cohort with toe(s) amputation. Samples were typically older, male and included people with diabetes among other comorbidities. Incidence rates were reported using a myriad of denominators and strata such as diabetes type or initial/recurrent amputation. Conclusion: When appropriately grouped by denominator and strata, incidence rates were more homogenous than might be expected. Variation between studies did not necessarily reduce confidence in the conclusion; for example, incidence rate of PFA were many times larger in cohorts with diabetes (94.24 per 100,000 people with diabetes; 95% CI 55.50 to 133.00) compared to those without (3.80 per 100,000 people without diabetes; 95% CI 1.43 to 6.16). It is unclear whether the incidence rates of PFA have changed over time or how they have changed relative to TTA. Further research requires datasets that include a large number of amputations each year and lengthy time periods to determine whether small annual changes in incidence rates have a cumulative and statistically significant effect over time. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42015029186.
Amputation; Partial foot; Transtibial; Incidence; Prevalence; Epidemiology
Background
Lower limb amputation is a common consequence of
advanced peripheral vascular disease, often secondary to the
long-term consequences of diabetes [
1
]. Unfortunately,
little is known about the number people living with limb
loss given the paucity of prevalence data and uncertainty
inherent in estimating prevalence based on historical
trends in amputation incidence and mortality [
2
]. By
comparison, there is a comparatively large body of literature
that suggests the incidence rate of lower limb amputation
has remained fairly constant over the last 15 years [
3, 4
].
A more detailed look at these data suggests there may
have been a shift in the types of lower limb amputations
performed [
3–7
]. The incidence rate of transtibial
amputation (TTA) seems to have declined [
3, 8–11
], while there
is some evidence that the incidence rate of partial foot
amputation (PFA) has increased proportionately [
3, 7
].
There is considerable uncertainty in these observations
given the different ways these data have been measured,
standardized, and reported. For example, studies have
expressed the number of amputations as a function of the
total population (e.g., per 100,000 population), an at-risk
population (e.g., per 10,000 people with diabetes), or as a
true rate that accounts for the time people are at-risk (e.g.,
per 1000 person-years) [
12
]. Such variation in the incidence
rate data are further complicated depending on which
amputation procedures are counted. For example, some
studies exclude people with toe amputations [
13
] and as such,
likely underestimate the true incidence rate of PFA given
that about 60% of PFA affect one or more toes [
3, 14
].
While the effect of these sorts of variations in method
design have been discussed in the literature [
12, 15, 16
], the
extent to which the (...truncated)