Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Jun 17;6(6):CD012427.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012427.pub2.

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations

Li Khim Kwah  1 , Matthew T Webb, Lina Goh, Lisa A Harvey
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations

Li Khim Kwah et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Dressings are part of the routine postoperative management of people after transtibial amputation. Two types of dressings are commonly used; soft dressings (e.g. elastic bandages, crepe bandages) and rigid dressings (e.g. non-removable rigid dressings, removable rigid dressings, immediate postoperative protheses). Soft dressings are the conventional dressing choice as they are cheap and easy to apply, while rigid dressings are costly, more time consuming to apply and require skilled personnel to apply the dressings. However, rigid dressings have been suggested to result in faster wound healing due to the hard exterior providing a greater degree of compression to the stump.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of rigid dressings versus soft dressings for treating transtibial amputations.

Search methods: In December 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid AMED and PEDro to identify relevant trials. To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing studies, we also searched clinical trial registries, the grey literature, the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified in prior searches. We used the Cited Reference Search facility on ThomsonReuters Web of Science and contacted relevant individuals and organisations. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that enrolled people with transtibial amputations. There were no restrictions on the age of participants and reasons for amputation. Trials that compared the effectiveness of rigid dressings with soft dressings were the main focus of this review.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text publications for eligible studies. Two review authors also independently extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments.

Main results: We included nine RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving 436 participants (441 limbs). All studies recruited participants from acute and/or rehabilitation hospitals from seven different countries (the USA, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada, France and the UK). In all but one study, it was clearly stated that amputations were secondary to vascular conditions.Primary outcomes Wound healing We are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to wound healing compared with soft dressings (MD -25.60 days; 95% CI -49.08 to -2.12; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of wounds healed compared with soft dressings (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.76; one study, 51 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision.Adverse events It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of skin-related adverse events compared with soft dressings (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; six studies, 336 participants (340 limbs)); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision.It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of non skin-related adverse events compared with soft dressings (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.99; I2 = 0%; six studies, 342 participants (346 limbs)); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. In addition, we are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to no pain compared with soft dressings (MD -0.35 weeks; 95% CI -2.11 to 1.41; one study of 23 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision.Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to walking compared with soft dressings (MD -3 days; 95% CI -9.96 to 3.96; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. We are also uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the length of hospital stay compared with soft dressings (MD -30.10 days; 95% CI -49.82 to -10.38; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. It is also not clear whether rigid dressings decrease the time to readiness for prosthetic prescription and swelling compared with soft dressings, as results are based on very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once/twice for serious/very serious imprecision. None of the studies reported outcomes on patient comfort, quality of life and cost.

Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain of the benefits and harms of rigid dressings compared with soft dressings for people undergoing transtibial amputation due to limited and very low-certainty evidence. It is not clear if rigid dressings are superior to soft dressings for improving outcomes related to wound healing, adverse events, prosthetic prescription, walking function, length of hospital stay and swelling. Clinicians should exercise clinical judgement as to which type of dressing they use, and consider the pros and cons of each for patients (e.g. patients with high risk of falling may benefit from the protection offered by a rigid dressing, and patients with poor skin integrity may have less risk of skin breakdown from a soft dressing).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Li Khim Kwah: none known.

Matthew Webb: none known.

Lina Goh: none known.

Lisa Harvey: two government organisations, Lifetime Care and Support Authority of NSW, Australia, fund my academic unit and position at the University of Sydney, Australia. I am Editor‐in‐Chief of Spinal Cord.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 1 Primary outcome 1: Wound healing ‐ Time from amputation to wound healing.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 2 Primary outcome 1: Wound healing ‐ Proportion of wounds healed (short‐term).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 3 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of skin‐related adverse events ‐ All types.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 4 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Revisions to above knee amputations).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 5 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Wound breakdown/trauma/infections).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 6 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Pressure areas).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 7 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of non skin‐related adverse events ‐ All types.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 8 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of non skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Deaths).
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 9 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of non skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Medical complications).
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 10 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of non skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Falls).
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 11 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of non skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Stump pain).
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 12 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Proportion of non skin‐related adverse events ‐ Individual type (Phantom pain).
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 13 Primary outcome 2: Adverse events ‐ Time from amputation to no pain.
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 14 Secondary outcome 1: Prescription of prosthetics ‐ Time from amputation to first prosthetic fit/cast.
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 15 Secondary outcome 2: Physical function ‐ Time from amputation to walking.
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 16 Secondary outcome 3: Length of hospital stay.
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 17 Secondary outcome 4: Change in swelling (short‐term).
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 Rigid versus soft dressings, Outcome 18 Secondary outcome 4: Change in swelling (medium‐term).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012427

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Baker 1977 {published data only}
    1. Baker WH, Barnes RW, Shurr DG. The healing of below‐knee amputations: a comparison of soft and plaster dressing. American Journal of Surgery 1977;133(6):716‐8. - PubMed
Deutsch 2005 {published data only}
    1. Deutsch A, English RD, Vermeer TC, Murray PS, Condous M. Removable rigid dressings versus soft dressings: a randomized, controlled study with dysvascular, trans‐tibial amputees. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2005;29(2):193‐200. - PubMed
Hidayati 2013 {published data only}
    1. Hidayati ER, Ilyas E, Murdana IN, Tarigan TJ, Werdhani RA. Efficacy of removable rigid dressing after transtibial amputation in diabetes mellitus patients. Medical Journal of Indonesia 2013;22:16‐21.
Janchai 2008 {published data only}
    1. Janchai S, Boonhong J, Tiamprasit J. Comparison of removable rigid dressing and elastic bandage in reducing the residual limb volume of below knee amputees. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2008;91(9):1441‐6. - PubMed
MacLean 1994 {published data only}
    1. MacLean N, Fick GH. The effect of semirigid dressings on below‐knee amputations. Physical Therapy 1994;74(7):668‐73. - PubMed
Mueller 1982 {published data only}
    1. Mueller MJ. Comparison of removable rigid dressings and elastic bandages in preprosthetic management of patients with below‐knee amputations. Physical Therapy 1982;62(10):1438‐41. - PubMed
Vigier 1999 {published data only}
    1. Vigier S, Casillas JM, Dulieu V, Rouhier‐Marcer I, D'Athis P, Didier JP. Healing of open stump wounds after vascular below‐knee amputation: plaster cast socket with silicone sleeve versus elastic compression. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999;80(10):1327‐30. - PubMed
Wong 2000 {published data only}
    1. Wong CK, Edelstein JE. Unna and elastic postoperative dressings: comparison of their effects on function of adults with amputation and vascular disease. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000;81(9):1191‐8. - PubMed
Woodburn 2004 {published data only}
    1. Woodburn KR, Sockalingham S, Gilmore H, Condie ME, Ruckley CV, Scottish Vascular Audit Group, Scottish Physiotherapy Amputee Research Group. A randomised trial of rigid stump dressing following trans‐tibial amputation for peripheral arterial insufficiency. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2004;28(1):22‐7. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Choksy 2006 {published data only}
    1. Choksy SA, Lee Chong P, Smith C, Ireland M, Beard J. A randomised controlled trial of the use of a tourniquet to reduce blood loss during transtibial amputation for peripheral arterial disease. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2006;31(6):646‐50. - PubMed
Graf 2003 {published data only}
    1. Graf M, Freijah N. Early trans‐tibial oedema control using polymer gel socks. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2003;27(3):221‐6. - PubMed
Johannesson 2008 {published data only}
    1. Johannesson A, Larsson GU, Oberg T, Atroshi I. Comparison of vacuum‐formed removable rigid dressing with conventional rigid dressing after transtibial amputation: similar outcome in a randomized controlled trial involving 27 patients. Acta Orthopaedica 2008;79(3):361‐9. - PubMed
Jones 1970 {published data only}
    1. Jones RF, Burniston GG. A conservative approach to lower‐limb amputations. Review of 240 amputees with a trial of the rigid dressing. Medical Journal of Australia 1970;2(16):711‐8. - PubMed
Kane 1980 {published data only}
    1. Kane TJ, Pollak EW. The rigid versus soft postoperative dressing controversy: a controlled study in vascular below‐knee amputees. American Surgeon 1980;46(4):244‐7. - PubMed
Ladenheim 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ladenheim E, Oberti‐Smith K, Tablada G. Results of managing transtibial amputations with a prefabricated polyethylene rigid removable dressing. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 2007;19(1):2‐4.
Louie 2010 {published data only}
    1. Louie S, Lai F, Poon C, Leung S, Wan I, Wong S. Residual limb management for persons with transtibial amputation: Comparison of bandaging technique and residual limb sock. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 2010;22(3):194‐201.
Manella 1981 {published data only}
    1. Manella KJ. Comparing the effectiveness of elastic bandages and shrinker socks for lower extremity amputees. Physical Therapy 1981;61(3):334‐7. - PubMed
Mooney 1971 {published data only}
    1. Mooney V, Harvey JP Jr, McBride E, Snelson R. Comparison of postoperative stump management: plaster vs. soft dressings. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1971;53(2):241‐9. - PubMed
Ruckley 1986 {published data only}
    1. Ruckley CV, Rae A, Prescott RJ. Controlled environment unit in the care of the below‐knee amputation stump. British Journal of Surgery 1986;73(1):11‐3. - PubMed
Topuz 2012 {published data only}
    1. Topuz S, Ülger Ö, Bakar Y, Sener G. Comparison of the effects of complex decongestive physiotherapy and conventional bandaging on edema of geriatric amputees: a pilot study. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 2012;28(4):275‐80.

References to ongoing studies

NCT03593174 {published data only}
    1. NCT03593174. Étude de l'efficacité du Pansement Rigide Amovible Sous Vide à Titre de modalité de Pansement Post‐amputation Tibiale. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03593174 (first registered on 19 June 2018).
TCTR20170928004 {published data only}
    1. TCTR20170928004. Comparison of removable rigid dressing and elastic bandage for preprosthetic training in transtibial amputees: a randomized controlled trial. apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=TCTR20170928004 (first registered 24 June 2017).

Additional references

ACI 2017
    1. NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI). Care of the person following amputation: minimum standards of care. www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/360532/The‐care‐of... (accessed 23 March 2018).
Ahmad 2014
    1. Ahmad N, Thomas GN, Gill P, Chan C, Torella F. Lower limb amputation in England: prevalence, regional variation and relationship with revascularisation, deprivation and risk factors. A retrospective review of hospital data. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2014;107(12):483‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Ali 2013
    1. Ali MM, Loretz L, Shea A, Poorvu E, Robinson WP, Schanzer A, et al. A contemporary comparative analysis of immediate postoperative prosthesis placement following below‐knee amputation. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2013;27(8):1146‐53. - PubMed
BACPAR 2012
    1. British Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Amputee Rehabilitation (BACPAR). Guidance for the multidisciplinary team on the management of post‐operative residuum oedema in lower limb amputees. bacpar.csp.org.uk/publications/guidance‐multi‐disciplinary‐team‐manageme... (accessed 23 March 2018).
Barnes 2014
    1. Barnes R, Souroullas P, Chetter IC. A survey of perioperative management of major lower limb amputations: current UK practice. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2014;28(7):1737‐43. - PubMed
Burgess 1968
    1. Burgess EM, Romano RL. The management of lower extremity amputees using immediate postsurgical prostheses. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1968;57:137‐46. - PubMed
Choudhury 2001
    1. Choudhury SR, Reiber GE, Pecoraro JA, Czerniecki JM, Smith DG, Sangeorzan BJ. Postoperative management of transtibial amputations in VA hospitals. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2001;38(3):293‐8. - PubMed
Churilov 2014
    1. Churilov I, Churilov L, Murphy D. Do rigid dressings reduce the time from amputation to prosthetic fitting? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2014;28(7):1801‐8. - PubMed
Condon 1969
    1. Condon RE, Jordan PH Jr. Immediate postoperative prostheses in vascular amputations. Annals of Surgery 1969;170(3):435‐47. - PMC - PubMed
Curran 2014
    1. Curran T, Zhang JQ, Lo RC, Fokkema M, McCallum JC, Buck DB, et al. Risk factors and indications for readmission after lower extremity amputation in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2014;60(5):1315‐24. - PMC - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Dumville 2015a
    1. Dumville JC, Keogh SJ, Liu Z, Stubbs N, Walker RM, Fortnam M. Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011277.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Dumville 2015b
    1. Dumville JC, Stubbs N, Keogh SJ, Walker RM, Liu Z. Hydrogel dressings for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011226.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Duwayri 2012
    1. Duwayri Y, Vallabhaneni R, Kirby JP, Mueller MJ, Volshteyn O, Geraghty PJ, et al. Early protection and compression of residual limbs may improve and accelerate prosthetic fit: a preliminary study. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2012;26(2):242‐9. - PubMed
EndNote 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Thomson Reuters. EndNote. Version X7.2.1. New York: Thomson Reuters, 2014.
Folsom 1992
    1. Folsom D, King T, Rubin JR. Lower‐extremity amputation with immediate postoperative prosthetic placement. American Journal of Surgery 1992;164(4):320‐2. - PubMed
Fortington 2013
    1. Fortington LV, Geertzen JH, Netten JJ, Postema K, Rommers GM, Dijkstra PU. Short and long term mortality rates after a lower limb amputation. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2013;46(1):124‐31. - PubMed
Gethin 2015
    1. Gethin G, Killeen F, Devane D. Heterogeneity of wound outcome measures in RCTs of treatments for VLUs: a systematic review. Journal of Wound Care 2015;24(5):211‐26. - PubMed
Golbranson 1968
    1. Golbranson FL, Asbelle C, Strand D. Immediate postsurgical fitting and early ambulation. A new concept in amputee rehabilitation. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1968;56:119‐31. - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Version last updated: December 04, 2015. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.), 2015.
Harris 2009
    1. Harris AM, Althausen PL, Kellam J, Bosse MJ, Castillo R, Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) Study Group. Complications following limb‐threatening lower extremity trauma. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2009;23(1):1‐6. - PubMed
Hex 2012
    1. Hex N, Bartlett C, Wright D, Taylor M, Varley D. Estimating the current and future costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabetic Medicine 2012;29(7):855‐62. - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hoffman 2014
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. - PubMed
Hughes 1998
    1. Hughes S, Ni S, Wilson S. Use of removable rigid dressing for transtibial amputees rehabilitation: a Greenwich Hospital experience. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 1998;44(2):135‐7. - PubMed
Johannesson 2010
    1. Johannesson A, Larsson GU, Ramstrand N, Lauge‐Pedersen H, Wagner P, Atroshi I. Outcomes of a standardized surgical and rehabilitation program in transtibial amputation for peripheral vascular disease: a prospective cohort study. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2010;89(4):293‐303. - PubMed
Jones 2013
    1. Jones WS, Patel MR, Dai D, Vemulapalli S, Subherwal S, Stafford J, et al. High mortality risks after major lower extremity amputation in Medicare patients with peripheral artery disease. American Heart Journal 2013;165(5):809‐15. - PubMed
Kayssi 2015
    1. Kayssi A, Mestral C, Forbes TL, Roche‐Nagle G. Predictors of hospital readmissions after lower extremity amputations in Canada. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2015;63(3):688‐95. - PubMed
Kontopantelis 2013
    1. Kontopantelis E, Springate DA, Reeves D. A re‐analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta‐analyses. PLOS One 2013;8(7):e69930. - PMC - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J, on behalf of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. - PMC - PubMed
Ma 2014
    1. Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers KJ. Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2014;95(5):986‐95.e.1. - PMC - PubMed
MacKenzie 2004
    1. MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Castillo RC, Smith DG, Webb LX, Kellam JF, et al. Functional outcomes following trauma‐related lower‐extremity amputation. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2004;86(8):1636‐45. - PubMed
MacKenzie 2005
    1. MacKenzie EJ, 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. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2005;87(8):1801‐9. - PubMed
Moxey 2010
    1. Moxey PW, Hofman D, Hinchliffe RJ, Jones K, Thompson MM, Holt PJ. Epidemiological study of lower limb amputation in England between 2003 and 2008. British Journal of Surgery 2010;97(9):1348‐53. - PubMed
Moxey 2011
    1. Moxey PW, Gogalniceanu P, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, Jones KJ, Thompson MM, et al. Lower extremity amputations ‐ a review of global variability in incidence. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(10):1144‐53. - PubMed
Nawijn 2005
    1. Nawijn SE, Linde H, Emmelot CH, Hofstad CJ. Stump management after trans‐tibial amputation: a systematic review. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2005;29(1):13‐26. - PubMed
Perkins 2012
    1. Perkins ZB, De'Ath HD, Sharp G, Tai NR. Factors affecting outcome after traumatic limb amputation. British Journal of Surgery 2012;99(Suppl 1):75‐86. - PubMed
Pinzur 1989
    1. Pinzur MS, Littooy F, Osterman H, Schwartz D. A safe, pre‐fabricated, immediate postoperative prosthetic limb system for rehabilitation of below‐knee amputations. Orthopedics 1989;12(10):1343‐5. - PubMed
Randolph 2017
    1. Randolph B, Webster J, Highsmith MJ. VA/DoD Clinical practice guideline for rehabilitation of individuals with lower limb amputation. www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Rehab/amp/ (accessed 23 March 2018).
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ries 2015
    1. Ries Z, Rungprai C, Harpole B, Phruetthiphat OA, Gao Y, Pugely A, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and causes for thirty‐day unplanned readmissions following primary lower‐extremity amputation in patients with diabetes. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2015;97(21):1774‐80. - PubMed
Schon 2002
    1. Schon LC, Short KW, Soupiou O, Noll K, Rheinstein J. Benefits of early prosthetic management of transtibial amputees: a prospective clinical study of a prefabricated prosthesis. Foot and Ankle International 2002;23(6):509‐14. - PubMed
Schulz 2010
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. - PMC - PubMed
Schünemann 2011a
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Schünemann 2011b
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
SIGN 2018
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. www.sign.ac.uk/search‐filters.html (accessed 22 November 2018).
Smith 2003
    1. Smith DG, McFarland LV, Sangeorzan BJ, Reiber GE, Czerniecki JM. Postoperative dressing and management strategies for transtibial amputations: a critical review. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2003;40(3):213‐24. - PubMed
Smith 2017
    1. Smith S, Pursey H, Jones A. Clinical guidelines for the pre and post‐operative physiotherapy management of adults with lower limb amputations. 2nd edition March 2017. bacpar.csp.org.uk/publications/2nd‐edition‐clinical‐guidelines‐pre‐post‐... (accessed 23 March 2018).
Sumpio 2013
    1. Sumpio B, Shine SR, Mahler D, Sumpio BE. A comparison of immediate postoperative rigid and soft dressings for below‐knee amputations. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2013;27(6):774‐80. - PubMed
Taylor 2008
    1. Taylor L, Cavenett S, Stepien JM, Crotty M. Removable rigid dressings: a retrospective case‐note audit to determine the validity of post‐amputation application. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2008;32(2):223‐30. - PubMed
Tierney 2007
    1. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into meta‐analysis. Trials 2007; Vol. 8, issue 16:available from trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745‐6215‐8‐16. [DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Tintle 2010
    1. Tintle SM, Keeling JJ, Shawen SB, Forsberg JA, Potter BK. Traumatic and trauma‐related amputations: part I: general principles and lower‐extremity amputations. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2010;92(17):2852‐68. - PubMed
US Department of Veterans Affairs 2017
    1. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD). VA/DoD Clinical practice guideline for rehabilitation of individuals with lower limb amputation. Version 2.0. September 2017. www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Rehab/amp/VADoDLLACPG092817.pdf (accessed 21 November 2018).
Varma 2014
    1. Varma P, Stineman MG, Dillingham TR. Epidemiology of limb loss. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 2014;25(1):1‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Williamson 2017
    1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017;18(Suppl 3):280. - PMC - PubMed
Wu 1979
    1. Wu Y, Keagy RD, Krick HJ, Stratigos JS, Betts HB. An innovative removable rigid dressing technique for below‐the‐knee amputation. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1979;61(5):724‐9. - PubMed
Zayed 2014
    1. Zayed M, Bech F, Hernandez‐Boussard T. National review of factors influencing disparities and types of major lower extremity amputations. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2014;28(5):1157‐65. - PubMed
Ziegler‐Graham 2008
    1. Ziegler‐Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2008;89(3):422‐9. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Kwah 2016
    1. Kwah LK, Goh L, Harvey LA. Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012427] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types