Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Sep 19;17(9):e0274786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274786

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes at one year after injury between limb salvage and amputation: A prospective cohort study

Taketo Kurozumi 1,*, Takahiro Inui 1, Yuhei Nakayama 1, Akifumi Honda 1, Kentaro Matsui 1, Keisuke Ishii 1, Takashi Suzuki 1, Yoshinobu Watanabe 1
Editor: Alvan Ukachukwu2
PMCID: PMC9484632  PMID: 36121827

Abstract

Purpose

This single-center, prospective cohort study aimed to compare the patient-reported outcomes one year after injury between limb salvage and amputation and to elucidate whether amputation contributes to early recovery of functionality and quality of life.

Methods

We included 47 limbs of 45 patients with severe open fractures of the lower limb and categorized them into limb salvage and amputation groups. Data on patient-reported outcomes one year after injury were obtained from the Database of Orthopaedic Trauma by the Japanese Society for Fracture Repair at our center. Patients’ limbs were evaluated using the lower extremity functional scale and Short-Form 8. Early recovery was assessed using functionality and quality-of-life questionnaires.

Results

Of the 47 limbs, 34 limbs of 34 patients were salvaged, and 13 limbs of 11 patients were amputated. Significant differences were noted between the limb salvage and amputation groups in terms of the lower extremity functional scale scores (mean: 49.5 vs. 33.1, P = 0.025) and scores for the mental health component (mean: 48.7 vs. 38.7, P = 0.003), role–physical component (mean: 42.2 vs. 33.3, P = 0.026), and mental component summary (mean: 48.2 vs. 41.3, P = 0.042) of the Short-Form 8. The limb salvage group had better scores than the amputation group.

Conclusions

As reconstruction technology has advanced and limb salvaging has become possible, the focus of studies should now be based on the perspective of “how the patient feels;” hence, we believe that the results of this study, which is based on patient-reported outcomes, are meaningful.

Introduction

Background

Advances in knowledge and technology have made salvaging the limbs of patients with severe trauma and injuries possible. Some reports suggest that amputation and limb salvage results for these injuries are similar [1–3]. However, even in recent years, amputation is occasionally the chosen course of action, rather than limb salvage, in severe limb injuries because it allows patients to regain their social lives sooner [4–6]. Moreover, many previous investigations on this topic are retrospective cohort studies or meta-analyses on retrospective studies, whereas prospective cohort studies based on patient-reported outcomes, such as the LEAP study, are extremely rare [1–3].

Objective

The present study aimed to compare the patient-reported outcomes, such as limb function and quality of life, at one year after injury between limb salvage and amputation in patients with Gustilo classification IIIb and IIIc fractures to determine whether amputation leads to early recovery and regaining of social lives.

Materials and methods

Study design

A single-center, prospective cohort study.

Setting

The Trauma and Reconstruction Center, Teikyo University Hospital, where patients with orthopedic injuries and trauma are managed.

Data source

The Database of Orthopaedic Trauma managed by the Japanese Society for Fracture Repair.

Variable

Patient age, sex, Gustilo classification, AO Foundation/Orthopedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification, Orthopedic Trauma Association Open Fracture Classification (OTA-OFC), OTA-OFC summative score [7], complications, pre-operative and post-operative lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) score [8], post-operative Short-Form 8 (SF-8) score [6], number of operations, surgical site infection rate, and patient employment status.

The study conformed to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and its amendments. Approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Teikyo University Ethical Review Board for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects (approval number: 14-167-3). Written and verbal informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to treatment and participation.

Participants

Of the 439 limbs of 414 registered patients with open long-bone fractures at our center between February 2015 and December 2019, 69 limbs of 65 patients were diagnosed with Gustilo classification IIIb and IIIc fractures, and 53 limbs of 51 patients were diagnosed with lower limb fractures, according to the AO/OTA classification 41–44. This study included 47 limbs of 45 patients diagnosed as Gustilo classification IIIb and IIIc as well as lower limb fractures (Fig 1). The follow-up rate was 88.2%. Patients were requested to provide self-reported outcomes 9–15 months after injury. Salvaging or amputating the injured limb was decided by the facility for each patient, depending on the extent of limb injury and the patient’s general condition and social background. Of the 47 limbs of 45 patients, 34 limbs of 34 patients were salvaged, whereas 13 limbs of 11 patients were amputated. As an additional analysis with adjusted patient background, the same analysis procedures were carried out again after excluding patients with contralateral leg injuries, pelvic ring or acetabular fractures, and pre-injury functional impairment.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of the study design.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

DOTJ, Database of Orthopaedic Trauma managed by the Japanese Society for Fracture Repair.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes of our study were patient-reported outcomes based on LEFS and SF-8 questionnaires [8, 9]. The LEFS consists of 20 questions and is scored on a 0–80 points scale, with higher scores indicating higher functionality [8]. The SF-8 consists of eight health dimensions and two summary measures and is calculated using a national average of 50 points (Norm-based Scoring), with higher scores indicating better health [9]. The secondary outcomes were the number of operations, surgical site infection rate, and patients’ employment status (rate of change in employment), which are indicators of early recovery. The OTA-OFC summative score of the patients between the two groups was compared.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted using the John’s Macintosh Project software (Version 15.1.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Non-parametric testing with significance levels defined by a P-values of <0.05 was performed.

Results

Main result

Table 1 shows patient background characteristics, including the OTA-OFC summative score. Greater severity was observed in the amputation group than in the salvage group (14.3 and 9.8, respectively; P<0.001). Figs 2 and 3, and Table 1 show the study’s primary outcomes. As shown in Figs 2 and 3, the mean LEFS score was 49.5 (range, 15–80) for the salvage group and 33.1 (range, 5–61) for the amputation group, suggesting that the salvage group showed significantly superior primary outcomes compared with those shown by the amputation group (P = 0.025) (Table 1). In the SF-8, significant differences were observed between the salvage and amputation groups in the mean scores of the role–physical component (42.2 and 33.3; P = 0.026), mental health (48.7 and 38.7; P = 0.003), and mental component summary (48.2 and 41.3; P = 0.042). The limb salvage group showed better outcomes than the amputation group in all the aforementioned categories of the SF-8. Still, no significant differences were found between the two groups in the other categories of the SF-8 (Table 1).

Table 1. Background characteristics of the patients, primary and secondary outcomes of the salvage and amputation groups.

Salvage Amputation P-values
Patients (limbsa) 34 (34a) 11 (13a)
Age (years) 49.9 (7–75) 49.0 (23–95)
Sex (M:F) 28:6 7:4
OTA-OFC scorea 9.8 (6–14) 14.3 (8–15)
Pre-operative LEFS 79.4 (66–80) 72.7 (22–80)
Post-operative LEFS 49.5 (15–80) 33.1 (5–61) 0.025*
SF-8
Physical functioning 41.8 34.6 0.076
Role physical 42.2 33.3 0.026*
Bodily pain 49.2 44.5 0.107
General health 51.3 49.1 0.335
Vitality 50.9 46.8 0.076
Social functioning 44.8 38.5 0.060
Role emotional 45.1 39.4 0.050
Mental health 48.7 38.7 0.003*
Physical component summary 43.8 39.0 0.073
Mental component summary 48.2 41.3 0.042*
Number of operations 4.4 (2–8) 2.3 (1–6) 0.001*
Infection rate (%) 35.3 38.5 1.000
Rate of change in employment (%) 26.5 18.2 0.705
Open in a new tab

a Number of injured limbs

Data presented as mean (range). OTA-OFC summative score was calculated for the number of injured limbs.

* indicates a significant difference.

LEFS, lower extremity functional scale; OTA-OFC, Orthopedic Trauma Association Open Fracture Classification; SF-8, Short-Form 8

Fig 2. Pre- and post-operative changes in lower extremity function scale (LEFS) scores of enrolled patients.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Fig 3. Distribution of the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) score of the enrolled patients.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Table 1 also shows the secondary outcomes of the study. Significant differences were noted in the number of operations between the salvage and amputation groups, with a mean of 4.4 (range, 2–8) and 2.3 (range, 1–6) (P = 0.001) operations, respectively. However, no significant differences in other secondary outcomes were noted between the two groups.

Other analysis

Additional analysis was conducted for the 29 limbs of 29 patients after excluding 12 limbs of ten patients with contralateral lower limb injury, four limbs of four patients with pelvic ring or acetabular fractures, and two limbs of two patients with pre-injury LEFS scores of <77 (Fig 4). Hence, 24 patients in the salvage group and five in the amputation group were included in the additional analysis. The OTA-OFC summative scores were 10.1 and 14.6 for the salvage and amputation groups, respectively. Severity was greater in the amputation group than in the salvage group (P = 0.001) (Table 2). No significant differences in LEFS scores between the salvage and amputation groups were noted. However, for the SF-8, the scores of bodily pain component (salvage, 49.0; amputation, 38.7; P = 0.022), vitality component (salvage, 51.7; amputation, 45.1; P = 0.036), mental health component (salvage, 48.4; amputation, 36.3; P = 0.005), and mental component summary (salvage, 48.2; amputation, 38.2; P = 0.012) were significantly different between the two groups. The salvage group showed better scores in all the aforementioned SF-8 categories than the amputation group (Table 2). No significant differences in secondary outcomes were noted between the two groups, except for the number of operations (salvage, 4.3 [range, 2–8]; amputation, 2.6 [range, 2–3]; P = 0.023) (Table 2).

Fig 4. Flow diagram of the additional analysis.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

LEFS, lower extremity functional scale.

Table 2. Characteristics of the patients included in the additional analysis, and results of the additional analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes.

Salvage Amputation P-values
Patients 24 5
Age (years) 48.6 (7–73) 37.4 (23–47)
Sex (M:F) 21:3 4:1
OTA-OFC score 10.1 (7–14) 14.6 (14–15)
Pre-operative LEFS 79.8 (78–80) 80.0 (80)
Post-operative LEFS 50.4 (19–80) 46.4 (33–61) 0.686
SF-8
Physical functioning 41.7 38.4 0.645
Role–physical 42.2 35.7 0.296
Bodily pain 49 38.7 0.022*
General health 51.9 46.3 0.085
Vitality 51.7 45.1 0.036*
Social functioning 45 37.7 0.131
Role emotional 44.9 36.9 0.073
Mental health 48.4 36.3 0.005*
Physical component summary 44 39.9 0.194
Mental component summary 48.2 38.2 0.012*
Number of operations 4.3 (2–8) 2.6 (2–3) 0.023*
Infection rate (%) 41.6 40.0 0.945
Rate of change in employment (%) 16.7 0.0 0.200
Open in a new tab

Additional analysis was performed after excluding patients with contralateral leg injuries, pelvic ring or acetabular fractures, and pre-injury LEFS scores of <77.

* indicates a significant difference. Data are presented as mean (range).

LEFS, lower extremity functional scale; OTA-OFC, Orthopedic Trauma Association Open Fracture Classification; SF-8, Short-Form 8

Discussion

Key result

We initially believed that amputation contributed to the early recovery of the social life of patients with severe lower limb injuries. However, the obtained data on patient-reported outcomes one year after injury, as investigated in this study, suggested that limb salvage provided better limb function and mental health outcomes. Additionally, while limb salvage required more operations, it did not affect the prevalence of surgical site infections and patient employment status. Furthermore, as shown in the LEFS score distribution in Fig 3, we found that the LEFS score in the amputation group did not exceed 62. The mean LEFS for the amputation group was 33.1, which was also inferior to healthy women in their 80s [8] (Fig 2). These findings implied that some functional restrictions remained in the amputation group, even in cases showing good progress.

Our study noted cases of co-manifestation of injuries in other body parts due to the severity of the primary injury. In addition, some patients had existing pre-injury functional impairment caused by aging, which affected the evaluation. Therefore, we conducted an additional analysis using the same method but for a limited number of patients, excluding patients with contralateral leg injuries, pelvic ring or acetabular fractures, and a pre-injury LEFS score of <77 (Fig 4). We established an LEFS score of <77 as the standard for pre-injury functional impairment because the median LEFS score in a study of healthy subjects was 77 [8]. Even after limiting the analysis to fewer patients and considering patient backgrounds, no differences were observed in the functional aspects of patient-reported outcomes one year after injury, although the psychological aspects of the outcomes were better in the salvage group. However, considering the distribution of LEFS scores, while the amputation group did not perform well, some patients in the salvage group had poorer outcomes than all patients in the amputation group. In other words, not all patients in the salvage group had better outcomes than those in the amputation group (Fig 5). In the case of unsuccessful limb salvage surgery, the salvage group had worse functional and mental outcomes than the amputation group [5]. Variations in the outcomes of the salvage group cannot be overlooked.

Fig 5. Additional analysis of the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) scores in a limited number of patients, excluding those with contralateral leg injuries, pelvic ring or acetabular fractures, and a pre-injury LEFS score of <77.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Several reports [4–6, 10, 11] have suggested that amputation is better than limb salvage for treating severe lower limb injuries. This claim is based on various perspectives of rebuttals against treatments that aim for limb salvage, such as advances in prosthetic limb technology, perioperative complications, duration of rehabilitation, number of operations, rate of operation site infections, and financial problems. Limb amputation is often the intervention of choice based on these reports. A study reported that limb salvage is accompanied by long rehabilitation, higher total cost, and an increased likelihood of a larger number of additional operations and readmissions to the hospital [4]. Another study claimed that infection, reoperation, and hospitalization rates were significantly lower in the amputation group and that amputation provided better outcomes in terms of functioning and quality of life in patients with severe leg injuries [6]. New prosthetic limb technology allowed amputees to participate in activities, exercise, and perform recreational activities that were previously impossible [10].

Some circumstances, such as those related to the patients’ general condition and social background, necessitate amputation. However, according to several reports, limb salvage is more desirable than amputation in terms of psychological and long-term functional prognoses. Poor psychosocial outcomes after serious injuries have been reported by other investigators and may be associated with post-traumatic stress disorder [1]. In contrast, other reports have suggested that the time required by patients to return to work and the hospitalization period are similar between the two interventions [4–6, 12–14]. A meta-analysis showed that limb salvage and amputation are functionally equivalent, but limb salvage is the more psychologically acceptable approach [12]; this is consistent with another study claiming that amputation is more challenging to accept psychologically than limb salvage [1–3, 6]. Most patients with salvaged limbs face problems daily due to the limited range of motion, but none want amputation as an intervention [14]. A previous prospective study showed no significant difference in the functional outcomes between the limb salvage and amputation groups for at least seven years [2, 3]. In the realm of evidence-based medicine, the LEAP studies provided a wealth of data but still failed to completely determine the treatment at the onset of severe lower extremity trauma [1–3].

It is becoming possible not only to preserve the injured limb but also to reconstruct it for better functional outcomes [5, 15–19]. One study showed an increased possibility of limb salvage, even in patients with popliteal artery injuries [15]. In contrast, another study reported that limb salvage is valuable even in patients with posterior tibial nerve injury [16]. Given these circumstances, the present study focused on early recovery based on the patients’ perspectives.

Limitation

One limitation of this study is the lack of randomization. According to the OTA-OFC summative score, patients who underwent limb amputation had more severe injuries. As amputation is ultimately chosen for mangled injuries, it is unavoidable for prospective studies. Therefore, we believe that randomized studies involving a larger number of patients are required, either by excluding patients with high OTA-OFC summative scores or by taking OTA-OFC summative scores into account. Furthermore, to improve the post-operative outcome of severe leg injuries, it is essential to properly implement a comprehensive rehabilitation program that includes the physical and psychosocial aspects [1–3, 10]. At our facility, we believe that each patient was provided the opportunity to undergo rehabilitation with appropriate duration and quality, regardless of whether the intervention chosen was limb salvage or amputation.

Generalisability

With the advancement in reconstruction technology, it has become possible to salvage the affected limb. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the concept of “how the patient feels.” We believe that the results of this study, which is based on patient-reported outcomes, are meaningful. It is desirable to acquire knowledge and skills in revascularization, microvascular surgery, and flap surgery for severe lower leg injuries and consider salvaging the affected limb. However, the results of our additional analysis on a limited number of patients revealed that some patients with limb salvage had lower functional ability than patients with amputation and that limb salvage conducted without ascertaining the condition completely may result in worse outcomes than those observed with amputation.

In conclusion, one year after lower limb injury, limb salvage resulted in better functional and mental health outcomes than amputation. As reconstruction technology has advanced and limb salvaging has become possible, the focus of studies should now be based on “how the patient feels;” hence, we believe that this study’s results are based on patient-reported outcomes and are meaningful.

Data Availability

Request can be made to the Japanese Society for Fracture Repair secretariat (1-8-6, Shintomi Chuoku Tokyo 104-0041 Japan) or to jsfr@jsfr.jp and those who meet the criteria for access to anonymized patient level data will be granted data access.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, Kellam JF, Burgess AR, Webb LX, Swiontkowski MF, et al. An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation after leg-threatening injuries. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1924–31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mackenzie E, Bosse MJ, Pollak AN, Webb LX, Swiontkowski MF, Kellam JF, et al. Long-term persistence of disability following severe lower-limb trauma. Results of a seven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1801–9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Higgins TF, Klatt JB, Beals TC. Lower extremity assessment project (LEAP)–The best available evidence on limb-threatening lower extremity trauma. Orthop Clin N Am 2010;233–239. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2009.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Busse JW, Jacobs CL, Swiontkowski MF, Bosse MJ, Bhandari M. Complex limb salvage or early amputation for severe lower-limb injury: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:70–76. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31802cbc43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schirò GR, Sessa S, Piccioli A, Maccauro G. Primary amputation vs. limb salvage in mangled extremity: a systematic review of the current scoring system. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:372. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0832-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fioravanti M, Maman P, Curvale G, Rochwerger A, Mattei JC. Amputation versus conservative treatment in severe open lower-limb fracture: A functional and quality-of-life study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104:277–281. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.12.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hao J, Cuellar DO, Herbert B, Kim JW, Chadayammuri V, Casemyr N, et al. Does the OTA Open Fracture Classification Predict the Need for Limb Amputation? A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study on 512 Patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30:194–198. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000479 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dingemans SA, Kleipool SC, Mulders MAM, Winkelhagen J, Schep NWL, Goslings JC, et al. Normative data for the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS). Acta Orthop. 2017;88:422–426. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1309886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tokuda Y, Okubo T, Ohde S, Jacobs J, Takahashi O, Omata F, et al. Assessing items on the SF-8 Japanese version for health-related quality of life: a psychometric analysis based on the nominal categories model of item response theory. Value Health. 2009;12:568–573. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00449.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shawen SB, Keeling JJ, Branstetter J, Kirk KL, Ficke JR. The mangled foot and leg: salvage versus amputation. Foot Ankle Clin. 2010;15:63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2009.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Perkins ZB, Yet B, Glasgow S, Cole E, Marsh W, Brohi K, et al. Meta-analysis of prognostic factors for amputation following surgical repair of lower extremity vascular trauma. Br J Surg. 2015;102:436–450. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Akula M, Gella S, Shaw CJ, McShane P, Mohsen AM. A meta-analysis of amputation versus limb salvage in mangled lower limb injuries—the patient perspective. Injury. 2011;42:1194–1197. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Christensen J, Ipsen T, Doherty P, Langberg H. Physical and social factors determining quality of life for veterans with lower-limb amputation(s): a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:2345–2353. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1129446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tunali O, Saglam Y, Balci HI, Kochai A, Sahbaz NA, Sayin OA, et al. Gustilo type IIIC open tibia fractures with vascular repair: minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017;43:505–512. doi: 10.1007/s00068-016-0689-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dua A, Desai SS, Shah JO, Lasky RE, Charlton-Ouw KM, Azizzadeh A, et al. Outcome predictors of limb salvage in traumatic popliteal artery injury. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014;28:108–114. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2013.06.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Momoh AO, Kumaran S, Lyons D, Venkatramani H, Ramkumar S, Chung KC, et al. An Argument for Salvage in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma with Posterior Tibial Nerve Injury: The Ganga Hospital Experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:1337–1352. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Loja MN, Sammann A, DuBose J, Li CS, Liu Y, Savage S, et al. The mangled extremity score and amputation: Time for a revision. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82:518–523. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Frisvoll C, Clarke-Jenssen J, Madsen JE, Flugsrud G, Frihagen F, Andreassen GS, et al. 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. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29:899–906. doi: 10.1007/s00590-019-02382-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hohenberger GM, Konstantiniuk P, Cambiaso-Daniel J, Matzi V, Schwarz AM, Lumenta DB, et al. The Mangled Extremity Severity Score Fails to be a Good Predictor for Secondary Limb Amputation After Trauma with Vascular Injury in Central Europe. World J Surg. 2020;44:773–779. doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05263-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Arezoo Eshraghi

9 May 2022

PONE-D-22-06485Comparison of patient-reported outcomes at one year after injury between limb salvage and amputation: A prospective cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. KUROZUMI,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Arezoo Eshraghi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“No. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary:

The authors present a small cohort study of patients with severe lower limb fractures, an uncommon but profoundly disabling injury. Deciding on the optimal treatment (salvage or amputation) for patients with these injuries is recognised as one of the most difficult decisions a surgeon can face. The results of this study advance understanding of patient centered outcomes following these injuries, and will contribute to the literature aiding decision-making between amputation and limb salvage.

Major issues:

Introduction & Discussion:

1) The Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) was a multi-centre, prospective cohort study between 1994 and 1997 that investigated the topic of this paper, and followed patients up at 2 (Bosse, NEJM) and 7 (MacKenzie, JBJS) years. The results of the LEAP study are now probably dated, and differ from the results of this study - however, the authors should report the key background knowledge on this topic in the introduction, and discuss their findings in the content of this previous work. Indeed, the authors suggest in the introduction that "prospective studies based on patient reported outcomes are extremely rare", yet the LEAP study is just this, and has provided the largest body of knowledge on the topic.

Methods:

1) Consider using the Strobe reporting guideline for cohort studies

Minor issues:

Introduction:

1) The introduction is short, well written and highlights a clear rationale for the study and potential knowledge gap. However, there are few references. Please could the authors consider referencing more of the statements if possible.

Results:

1) The magnitude of the functional disability in both groups is substantial, this in itself is an important finding, that is not highlighted. Could the authors consider showing this in graphical format (before - after LEFS scores)? And place in context what a LEFS score of 33 (average for amputees) means - on average moderate to quite a bit of difficulty with all activities of daily living!

Discussion:

1) Consider discussing the possible reasons for the considerable impact these injuries have on mental health ( a key finding of this paper)

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Sep 19;17(9):e0274786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274786.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

10 Jun 2022

Response to Reviewers

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thank you for the information. We have made the required changes.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Response: Thank you for the information. We have added the following to the title page.

Request can be made to the Japanese Society for Fracture Repair secretariat (1-8-6, Shintomi Chuoku Tokyo 104-0041 Japan) or to jsfr@jsfr.jp and those who meet the criteria for access to anonymized patient level data will be granted data access.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“No. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We have added the following to the cover letter and it has been added to the Title page.

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Comments to the Author

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Summary:

The authors present a small cohort study of patients with severe lower limb fractures, an uncommon but profoundly disabling injury. Deciding on the optimal treatment (salvage or amputation) for patients with these injuries is recognised as one of the most difficult decisions a surgeon can face. The results of this study advance understanding of patient centered outcomes following these injuries, and will contribute to the literature aiding decision-making between amputation and limb salvage.

Response: Thank you for understanding our arguments.

Major issues:

Introduction & Discussion:

1) The Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) was a multi-centre, prospective cohort study between 1994 and 1997 that investigated the topic of this paper, and followed patients up at 2 (Bosse, NEJM) and 7 (MacKenzie, JBJS) years. The results of the LEAP study are now probably dated, and differ from the results of this study - however, the authors should report the key background knowledge on this topic in the introduction, and discuss their findings in the content of this previous work. Indeed, the authors suggest in the introduction that "prospective studies based on patient reported outcomes are extremely rare", yet the LEAP study is just this, and has provided the largest body of knowledge on the topic.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added its content in the background and discussion. Page 3, Line 65-71; Page 14, Lines 288-290

Methods:

1) Consider using the Strobe reporting guideline for cohort studies

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten some of them to conform to the guidelines. Page 3, Lines 79, 81; Page 4, Lines 86, 89.

Minor issues:

Introduction:

1) The introduction is short, well written and highlights a clear rationale for the study and potential knowledge gap. However, there are few references. Please could the authors consider referencing more of the statements if possible.

Response: Thank you very much. We have added some additional references and background information there. Page 3, Lines 65, 66, 68, 71.

Results:

1) The magnitude of the functional disability in both groups is substantial, this in itself is an important finding, that is not highlighted. Could the authors consider showing this in graphical format (before - after LEFS scores)? And place in context what a LEFS score of 33 (average for amputees) means - on average moderate to quite a bit of difficulty with all activities of daily living!

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added its content in the result and discussion. Pages 10-11, Lines 176-206; 217-218

Discussion:

1) Consider discussing the possible reasons for the considerable impact these injuries have on mental health ( a key finding of this paper)

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have added a discussion around this topic to the discussion section. Page 13, Lines 275-278

Attachment

Submitted filename: 22.06.08Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (20KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Arezoo Eshraghi

1 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-06485R1Comparison of patient-reported outcomes at one year after injury between limb salvage and amputation: A prospective cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. KUROZUMI,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Arezoo Eshraghi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Minor issue:

Thank you for including reference to the LEAP study body of work.

This was a large multi-centre, prospective observational study, that took place between 1994 and 1997, and remains one of the most important civilian studies on the topic.

In the revised introduction, the sentence "Moreover, many previous investigations on this topic are retrospective cohort studies or meta-analyses on retrospective studies, such as the LEAP study, whereas prospective cohort studies based on patient-reported outcomes are extremely rare [1-3]." implies that the LEAP study is a retrospective cohort study or a meta-analysis of retrospective studies, which it is neither. Please consider rewording to something like: "Moreover, many previous investigations on this topic are retrospective cohort studies or meta-analyses on retrospective studies, whereas prospective cohort studies based on patient-reported outcomes, such as the LEAP study, are extremely rare [1-3]."

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Sep 19;17(9):e0274786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274786.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

3 Jul 2022

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Minor issue:

Thank you for including reference to the LEAP study body of work.

This was a large multi-centre, prospective observational study, that took place between 1994 and 1997, and remains one of the most important civilian studies on the topic.

In the revised introduction, the sentence "Moreover, many previous investigations on this topic are retrospective cohort studies or meta-analyses on retrospective studies, such as the LEAP study, whereas prospective cohort studies based on patient-reported outcomes are extremely rare [1-3]." implies that the LEAP study is a retrospective cohort study or a meta-analysis of retrospective studies, which it is neither.

Please consider rewording to something like: "Moreover, many previous investigations on this topic are retrospective cohort studies or meta-analyses on retrospective studies, whereas prospective cohort studies based on patient-reported outcomes, such as the LEAP study, are extremely rare [1-3]."

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have made the required changes. Page 5, Line 68-69

Attachment

Submitted filename: 22.07.03Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Alvan Ukachukwu

6 Sep 2022

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes at one year after injury between limb salvage and amputation: A prospective cohort study

PONE-D-22-06485R2

Dear Dr. Kurozumi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alvan Ukachukwu, MD, MSc.GH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Alvan Ukachukwu

9 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-06485R2

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes at one year after injury between limb salvage and amputation: A prospective cohort study

Dear Dr. Kurozumi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alvan Ukachukwu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 22.06.08Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (20KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 22.07.03Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Request can be made to the Japanese Society for Fracture Repair secretariat (1-8-6, Shintomi Chuoku Tokyo 104-0041 Japan) or to jsfr@jsfr.jp and those who meet the criteria for access to anonymized patient level data will be granted data access.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES