Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: 85% of amputations unnecessary?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 7:32:25 AM6/1/06
to
Chakolate wrote:
> Apparently doctors opt too quickly for non-traumatic amputations -
> revascularization is a better choice:
>
> http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/epidemic-of-unneeded-amputations-
> 10697.html
>
> (quote)
> Non-traumatic amputations - those caused by arterial blockages related to
> diabetes, smoking, obesity and vascular system complications - are
> occurring at an alarming rate. Yet physicians may be too quick to
> amputate as 85 percent of them may be preventable, according to the
> International Diabetes Foundation.
>
> Amputations are not only disfiguring and life-threatening, but are more
> dangerous and more expensive than revascularization, which is the
> reestablishment of blood supply. Diabetics are especially at risk for
> non-traumatic amputations, accounting for 82,000 non-traumatic lower
> extremity amputations (LEAs) in the U.S. yearly, according to the
> American Diabetes Association. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
> reports more than 60 percent of LEAs occur in diabetics.
> (end quote)
>
> Who was it that said that a doctor may have to cut off your leg, but
> you're a fool if you give him a financial incentive to do so?

Actually, surgical revascularizations are more expensive than
amputations if you factor in the fact that most diabetic amputations
occur **after** infection is consuming the leg after starting as a
non-healing diabetic ulcer. Such **complicated** surgical
revascularizations are fraught with higher failure rates typically
leading to an amputation anyway plus the additional hidden costs of
prolonged SICU post-op care especially if the surgical wounds become
infected with one of those hospital-acquired vancomycin resistant bugs.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/jjl29

marcia

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 10:26:07 AM6/1/06
to

> Chakolate wrote:
> > Apparently doctors opt too quickly for non-traumatic amputations -
> > revascularization is a better choice:
> >
> > http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/epidemic-of-unneeded-amputations-
> > 10697.html
> >
> > (quote)
> > Non-traumatic amputations - those caused by arterial blockages related to
> > diabetes, smoking, obesity and vascular system complications - are
> > occurring at an alarming rate. Yet physicians may be too quick to
> > amputate as 85 percent of them may be preventable, according to the
> > International Diabetes Foundation.

When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?

Imo, the Diabetes Foundation is not advising patients that doctors are
too quick to amputate (rather than perform revascularization surgery)
so much as admonishing patients to take proper care of themselves and
get treated early.

It is my understanding, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong,
that patients often don't present at the hospital (or doctor's office)
until they have gangrene and portions of the foot have turned black,
indicating tissue is already dead. I don't believe you can successfully
revascularize *dead* tissue.

By the time a doctor sees these patients, amputation may be the only
recourse to control sepsis and remove necrotized tissue.

However, I am not a doctor and am often wrong. :)

Howard McCollister

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 11:11:01 AM6/1/06
to

"marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1149171967.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


Anytime there's gangrene, ischemic ulceration, or controllable infection,
the patient should be evaluated for revascularization, and revascularized if
feasible. The problem comes in when the infection is overwhelming, or when
it can't be controlled with antibiotics -- the same poor blood supply that
prevents delivery of oxygen to the tissues also prevents delivery of
antibiotics to the infection.

HMc

marcia

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 11:26:33 AM6/1/06
to

Howard McCollister wrote:
> "marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1149171967.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
> > preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
> > wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?
> >
> > Imo, the Diabetes Foundation is not advising patients that doctors are
> > too quick to amputate (rather than perform revascularization surgery)
> > so much as admonishing patients to take proper care of themselves and
> > get treated early.
> >
> > It is my understanding, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong,
> > that patients often don't present at the hospital (or doctor's office)
> > until they have gangrene and portions of the foot have turned black,
> > indicating tissue is already dead. I don't believe you can successfully
> > revascularize *dead* tissue.
> >
> > By the time a doctor sees these patients, amputation may be the only
> > recourse to control sepsis and remove necrotized tissue.
> >
> > However, I am not a doctor and am often wrong. :)
> >
> >
> Anytime there's gangrene, ischemic ulceration, or controllable infection,
> the patient should be evaluated for revascularization, and revascularized if
> feasible. The problem comes in when the infection is overwhelming, or when
> it can't be controlled with antibiotics -- the same poor blood supply that
> prevents delivery of oxygen to the tissues also prevents delivery of
> antibiotics to the infection.
>
> HMc


Thanks for the explanation, Howard. I didn't realize gangrenous tissue
could be salvaged. What about where it appears necrotized and has
turned black... is black tissue necessarily dead, or can
revascularization sometimes save it if circulation is restored in time?

Also, you mentioned ischemic ulceration-- I had traumatic
thrombophlebitis once (which developed into sepsis and gangrene), which
apparently announced itself via what appeared to be a large blister on
my leg near the site of the trauma. Is that ischemic ulceration? If so,
could you educate me a bit on that, if you have the time and
inclination?

Thanks again,
Marcia

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 12:51:26 PM6/1/06
to
marcia wrote:

>Andrew wrote:
> > Chakolate wrote:
> > > Apparently doctors opt too quickly for non-traumatic amputations -
> > > revascularization is a better choice:
> > >
> > > http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/epidemic-of-unneeded-amputations-
> > > 10697.html
> > >
> > > (quote)
> > > Non-traumatic amputations - those caused by arterial blockages related to
> > > diabetes, smoking, obesity and vascular system complications - are
> > > occurring at an alarming rate. Yet physicians may be too quick to
> > > amputate as 85 percent of them may be preventable, according to the
> > > International Diabetes Foundation.
>
> When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
> preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
> wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?

No. They are proposing that 85% of non-traumatic amputations could
have been revascularizations instead.

> Imo, the Diabetes Foundation is not advising patients that doctors are
> too quick to amputate (rather than perform revascularization surgery)
> so much as admonishing patients to take proper care of themselves and
> get treated early.

The OP's use of the cite is contrary to your opinion.

> It is my understanding, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong,
> that patients often don't present at the hospital (or doctor's office)
> until they have gangrene and portions of the foot have turned black,
> indicating tissue is already dead. I don't believe you can successfully
> revascularize *dead* tissue.

Correct.

> By the time a doctor sees these patients, amputation may be the only
> recourse to control sepsis and remove necrotized tissue.

Correct.

des...@insight.rr.com

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 12:58:13 PM6/1/06
to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> marcia wrote:
> > When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
> > preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
> > wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?
>
> No. They are proposing that 85% of non-traumatic amputations could
> have been revascularizations instead.

Do you agree with this assessment?

>
> > Imo, the Diabetes Foundation is not advising patients that doctors are
> > too quick to amputate (rather than perform revascularization surgery)
> > so much as admonishing patients to take proper care of themselves and
> > get treated early.
>
> The OP's use of the cite is contrary to your opinion.

The link he provided was dead when I clicked it. I was relying on my
memory of conventional advice to diabetics. But, as I've said, I'm
often wrong. :)

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 1:11:23 PM6/1/06
to
des...@insight.rr.com wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > marcia wrote:
> > > When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
> > > preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
> > > wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?
> >
> > No. They are proposing that 85% of non-traumatic amputations could
> > have been revascularizations instead.
>
> Do you agree with this assessment?

This has not been my clinical experience. However, I work at centers
where there are lots of vascular surgeons around so that if anything,
the figure is more like 0% of non-traumatic amputations could have been
revascularizations instead.

> > > Imo, the Diabetes Foundation is not advising patients that doctors are


> > > too quick to amputate (rather than perform revascularization surgery)
> > > so much as admonishing patients to take proper care of themselves and
> > > get treated early.
> >
> > The OP's use of the cite is contrary to your opinion.
>
> The link he provided was dead when I clicked it. I was relying on my
> memory of conventional advice to diabetics. But, as I've said, I'm
> often wrong. :)

Actually, mortal opinions are neither right nor wrong. They just
differ :-)

The only opinion that is absolutely right is GOD's :-))

Chakolate

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 2:48:43 PM6/1/06
to
"marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in news:1149171967.788257.244920
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
> preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
> wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?
>

That's not what I got from the article. I understood it to say that 85%
of the time when doctors opt for amputation, there are other options that
may save the foot.

Chak

--
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
--Jeannette Rankin

marcia

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:18:30 PM6/1/06
to

Chakolate wrote:
> "marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in news:1149171967.788257.244920
> @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
> > preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
> > wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?
> >
>
> That's not what I got from the article. I understood it to say that 85%
> of the time when doctors opt for amputation, there are other options that
> may save the foot.
>
> Chak

Thanks, Chak. I didn't read the article because I wasn't able to link
to it for some reason, so my response is mostly irrelevent, I'm afraid.
:)

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:08:25 PM6/1/06
to
Chakolate wrote:
> "marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in news:1149171967.788257.244920
> @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > When they say 85% of amputations may be preventable, don't they mean
> > preventable by daily foot inspection and early wound care *before* the
> > wound becomes gangrenous and necrotic?
>
> That's not what I got from the article. I understood it to say that 85%
> of the time when doctors opt for amputation, there are other options that
> may save the foot.

That's not what I got from your cite either. There are some places
(Canada for instance) where a shortage of vascular surgeons might make
the figure of salvageable limbs has high as 85%.

Chakolate

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:20:58 PM6/1/06
to
"marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in news:1149189510.466074.115070
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Thanks, Chak. I didn't read the article because I wasn't able to link
> to it for some reason, so my response is mostly irrelevent, I'm afraid.
>:)
>

I probably should have gone the extra step and included a tinyURL.
Sorry.

marcia

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:34:21 PM6/1/06
to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Now that I've actually had an opportunity to read the article, that's
not what I got from it, either. In the future I'll try to remember to
read first and form an opinion second. ;)

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:42:53 PM6/1/06
to

It's OK. Your opinion added to the discussion so there was neither
harm nor foul.

Pete

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 6:10:04 PM6/1/06
to

You don't do bad Marcia :-) .


marcia

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 6:44:08 PM6/1/06
to

Pete wrote:

> You don't do bad Marcia :-) .

Aw. You both made me feel better. My hero. :)

Howard McCollister

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 7:07:03 PM6/1/06
to

"marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1149175593.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>


> Thanks for the explanation, Howard. I didn't realize gangrenous tissue
> could be salvaged. What about where it appears necrotized and has
> turned black... is black tissue necessarily dead, or can
> revascularization sometimes save it if circulation is restored in time?
>

No, gangrene *is* necrosis, and necrosis is dead. The problem with gangrene
is that it implies more dead tissue which acts as an excellent substrate for
infection. Gangrenous tissue can't be salvaged, and generally must be
debrided (cut away). The reason for revascularization is to halt the process
of necrosis, not reverse it. The body will recover to an extensive degree
from such local insults.


> Also, you mentioned ischemic ulceration-- I had traumatic
> thrombophlebitis once (which developed into sepsis and gangrene), which
> apparently announced itself via what appeared to be a large blister on
> my leg near the site of the trauma. Is that ischemic ulceration? If so,
> could you educate me a bit on that, if you have the time and
> inclination?

Yes, likely ischemic ulceration. But the source of the ischemia isn't clear.
It sounds conceivable that you developed a clot in the vein (thrombosis)
which in turn set up inflammation (phlebitis), with the resultant local
swelling compressing local arterial supply (ischemia), causing dead tissue
(gangrene) which became infected (sepsis).

HMc

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 7:36:30 PM6/1/06
to
guy wrote:
> On 01 Jun 2006 05:18:49 GMT, Chakolate

> <chakolateDea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Apparently doctors opt too quickly for non-traumatic amputations -
> >revascularization is a better choice:
> >
> >http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/epidemic-of-unneeded-amputations-
> >10697.html
> >
> >(quote)
> >Non-traumatic amputations - those caused by arterial blockages related to
> >diabetes, smoking, obesity and vascular system complications - are
> >occurring at an alarming rate. Yet physicians may be too quick to
> >amputate as 85 percent of them may be preventable, according to the
> >International Diabetes Foundation.
> >
> >Amputations are not only disfiguring and life-threatening, but are more
> >dangerous and more expensive than revascularization, which is the
> >reestablishment of blood supply. Diabetics are especially at risk for
> >non-traumatic amputations, accounting for 82,000 non-traumatic lower
> >extremity amputations (LEAs) in the U.S. yearly, according to the
> >American Diabetes Association. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
> >reports more than 60 percent of LEAs occur in diabetics.
> >(end quote)
> >
> >Who was it that said that a doctor may have to cut off your leg, but
> >you're a fool if you give him a financial incentive to do so?
> >
> >Chak
>
> This is a lingering question with me. I did manage to save the
> leg that seemed to be in the worst shape. Without reservation
> I will say I saved it.
>
> The spreading of the Osteo type infection is they can rapidly spread
> and become s life threatening.
>
> The whole issue depends on the quality of the doctor.
>
> My real question is----is production line medicine a
> factor in these situations.?
>
> When the circulation is gone, is there is really only answer.
> The tissue is rotten. In my case the bones were crumbling.
>
> My case was mistakenly called a circulation problem
> but in retrospect that was not true.
>
> It not possible to discuss it here. too many issues.
>
> I can tell you one thing. It is not a nice situation to set
> in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. Tt hat is one
> reason I get pissed at some of the crap spewed here by
> uninformed people. To be an expert , you go to the trouble
> to learn.
>
> I was told by an old doc recently that osteomylitis is
> never cured and may reoccur. Not a nice thought.
>
> Two thoughts --production line medicine and it's misses..
> SEE peoole that cannot seem to accept the fact that the
> primary patient failure in diabetes is lack of control of food input
>
> SECOND OPINION is were you make sure the situation
> does not convey info from one doc to the other. The
> opinions must be TOTALLY independent.
>
> IN any case---------things happen--------what you do them is up to
> you.
> i was cutting tree limbs yesterday with a pole saw from my seat.
> Saved $120 dollars. May pay for ONE prescription.

As long as you don't injure yourself in the process.

Reminds me of the following observation:

You don't pay a surgeon to cut you with a scalpel. Anyone could do
that.

You pay him/her because s/he knows where to cut.

marcia

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 7:38:39 PM6/1/06
to

Howard McCollister wrote:
>
> No, gangrene *is* necrosis, and necrosis is dead. The problem with gangrene
> is that it implies more dead tissue which acts as an excellent substrate for
> infection. Gangrenous tissue can't be salvaged, and generally must be
> debrided (cut away). The reason for revascularization is to halt the process
> of necrosis, not reverse it. The body will recover to an extensive degree
> from such local insults.
>
>
> > Also, you mentioned ischemic ulceration-- I had traumatic
> > thrombophlebitis once (which developed into sepsis and gangrene), which
> > apparently announced itself via what appeared to be a large blister on
> > my leg near the site of the trauma. Is that ischemic ulceration? If so,
> > could you educate me a bit on that, if you have the time and
> > inclination?
>
> Yes, likely ischemic ulceration. But the source of the ischemia isn't clear.
> It sounds conceivable that you developed a clot in the vein (thrombosis)
> which in turn set up inflammation (phlebitis), with the resultant local
> swelling compressing local arterial supply (ischemia), causing dead tissue
> (gangrene) which became infected (sepsis).
>
> HMc

Okay, thanks for clearing up my confusion. Yes, you're right that I
developed a blood clot, and the series of events you described fits
with my memory of the experience. I should probably have said I
developed septicemia (meaning the infection became systemic?) and was
very sick for awhile.

Thanks again. I really appreciate that you took time to respond. :)

Marcia

Howard McCollister

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 8:56:02 PM6/1/06
to

"marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1149205119.8...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yes, septicemia occurs when an infection gets into the blood stream.
Normally the body is very adept at walling off infections and keeping them
local. If severe enough, the infection can get into the bloodstream, which
can indeed be dangerous.

HMc

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 2, 2006, 1:29:43 AM6/2/06
to
guy wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 16:36:30 -0700, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >
> >As long as you don't injure yourself in the process.
> >
> >Reminds me of the following observation:
> >
> >You don't pay a surgeon to cut you with a scalpel. Anyone could do
> >that.
> >
> >You pay him/her because s/he knows where to cut.
>
> The surgeon,' work turned out very well. I asked him to be aggressive
> and to get all of the bad areas.

This would be one reason why you did not lose the limb.

> The surgery was a bear for the gal handling my vitals. The heart
> tried to stop. That was the reason for a dye injection test. All four
> coronary arteries were over 90% clogged.

Such blockages increase the risk of a cardiac event from induced
myocardial ischemia either during or immediately after surgery.

> The heart surgery has lasted for over six years but the side
> issues did not go so well.

I suspect your kidneys have been one of the side issues since you
mention being a brittle diabetic.

> Dr Chung, an old country doc said it would been better for us
> to go home and forget this type of surgery.

It does not sound like that was a viable option. Raging infection in a
limb with osteomyelitis plus the additional stress of surgical
debridement and post-op recovery from same would have increased risk of
prolonged periods of induced myocardial ischemia in someone with
severely occlusive multivessel coronary disease.

> At our age and condition
> we had developed natural bypasses.

If the natural bypasses were sufficient, your heart would not have
tried to stop during the surgical debridement.

> I will say there is a quality
> life and "a life." I am very unsure if I would have the surgery if
> I had it to do.over.

It is possible that you would not be here now if the coronary
revascularization were not done.

> I ask you to take the time to think this over and
> give me an honest answer. i have no fear of bad
> news. I do have a fear of reentering a famous Houston
> heart hospital. I would prefer to drop out trying to cut
> down a tree.

Understandably.

One non-surgical way to boost up the size and number of natural
bypasses so that they might become more sufficient is by receiving
enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). This is a non-invasive
treatment clinically proven to be effective in managing angina
pectoris. A recent study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine
demonstrated this:

http://tinyurl.com/n2z6t

This reference can also be used to pull up all the other studies that
have demonstrated clinical efficacy for EECP.

> Your comments would be appreciated..

You are welcome, Guy.

All thanks and praises redirected to LORD GOD Almighty, Who is the
source of all knowledge and wisdom.

> Added Mona's first husband died during bypass
> surgery early and she was left with two very
> young boys. I still see her sad sometimes.
> People have said the young mavericks killed him.
> This surgery was very new then and to loss of patients was very
> common..

It would be my choice to refrain from judging others. Often find it
difficult to love those whom I have judged. Really don't want to
disappoint my LORD and Savior.

> This is your area and I hope you might offer us some
> opinions.

Yes, this is how my LORD has shaped me. May the information in this
post help you.

> She worked and sent both boys through college.
> Both are doing well and her two grandchildren
> both finished college, the last this year.

Many praises to LORD GOD Almighty.

> Some say the surgery should not have ever happened.
> Any comments.

Hindsight is 20-20.

> A friend's surgeon kept him alive from age 38
> until he was 69. He negated a suggest surgery.
> in the friends mid years.

Different person. Different plan.

> This brash old specialist used to say if a
> patient died leaving his office, they were
> to turn the client around so it would seems like
> t hey were coming in. I like him and he
> was respected by all.

Sounds like he had a sense of humor.

> I sure could use a lot of sensible unbiased
> info .

Again, hope the above helps you.

My apologies in advance for the fallout you will receive for
participating in this discussion with me.

Reminds me of something I witnessed some years ago:

There was once this beautiful golden eagle, graceful in flight,
majestic in carriage, quite a sight to behold. It perched high and on
the lower branches there were a group of black grackles making heckling
sounds but the eagle ignored them.

I have observed this heckling in the avian kingdom for other eagles and
hawks. The more majestic and powerful the raptor, the larger the
number of hecklers.

The beautiful golden eagle reminded me of LORD Jesus Christ.

Maranatha !

Still praying for you, dear Guy.

lipanz...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 2, 2006, 10:31:59 PM6/2/06
to
Sometimes in early stage of necrosis or start of gangrene hyperbaric
oxygen can help. Also hyperbaric oxygen kills many bacteria. It also
can reach places deep in tissue where the antibiotics can't reach
because of poor circulation.
But of course the butchers act as tho it is a racket. Their pride
---they would rather amputate or do tma's - what does it hurt to try.
I could relay a horrible story but it is no use & how they cover their
tracks.

Howard McCollister

unread,
Jun 3, 2006, 12:25:01 AM6/3/06
to

<lipanz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1149301919....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Sometimes in early stage of necrosis or start of gangrene hyperbaric
> oxygen can help. Also hyperbaric oxygen kills many bacteria. It also
> can reach places deep in tissue where the antibiotics can't reach
> because of poor circulation.
> But of course the butchers act as tho it is a racket. Their pride
> ---they would rather amputate or do tma's - what does it hurt to try.
> I could relay a horrible story but it is no use & how they cover their
> tracks.


Some patients simply can't be revascularized - not physically possible. And
in some patients infection is so advanced that it's too late for antibiotics
and too late for hyperbaric oxygen - amputation is the only way to save the
patient's life from overwhelming sepsis and multiple organ failure.

HMc

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 3, 2006, 4:31:55 AM6/3/06
to

Would add that I have never met a surgical colleague that relished the
opportunity to perform an amputation.

Instead, it always feels as though a favor were being asked.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/oq5k3

Pete

unread,
Jun 3, 2006, 5:35:47 PM6/3/06
to
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Howard McCollister wrote:
>> <lipanz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149301919....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Sometimes in early stage of necrosis or start of gangrene hyperbaric
>>> oxygen can help. Also hyperbaric oxygen kills many bacteria. It also
>>> can reach places deep in tissue where the antibiotics can't reach
>>> because of poor circulation.
>>> But of course the butchers act as tho it is a racket. Their pride
>>> ---they would rather amputate or do tma's - what does it hurt to
>>> try. I could relay a horrible story but it is no use & how they
>>> cover their tracks.
>>
>> Some patients simply can't be revascularized - not physically
>> possible. And in some patients infection is so advanced that it's
>> too late for antibiotics and too late for hyperbaric oxygen -
>> amputation is the only way to save the patient's life from
>> overwhelming sepsis and multiple organ failure.
>>
>> HMc
>
> Would add that I have never met a surgical colleague that relished the
> opportunity to perform an amputation.

I would certainly hope not, or we are all in deep shit, including all the
surgeons also :-) .

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jun 3, 2006, 8:40:43 PM6/3/06
to
Pete wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Howard McCollister wrote:
> >> <lipanz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1149301919....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Sometimes in early stage of necrosis or start of gangrene hyperbaric
> >>> oxygen can help. Also hyperbaric oxygen kills many bacteria. It also
> >>> can reach places deep in tissue where the antibiotics can't reach
> >>> because of poor circulation.
> >>> But of course the butchers act as tho it is a racket. Their pride
> >>> ---they would rather amputate or do tma's - what does it hurt to
> >>> try. I could relay a horrible story but it is no use & how they
> >>> cover their tracks.
> >>
> >> Some patients simply can't be revascularized - not physically
> >> possible. And in some patients infection is so advanced that it's
> >> too late for antibiotics and too late for hyperbaric oxygen -
> >> amputation is the only way to save the patient's life from
> >> overwhelming sepsis and multiple organ failure.
> >>
> >> HMc
> >
> > Would add that I have never met a surgical colleague that relished the
> > opportunity to perform an amputation.
>
> I would certainly hope not, or we are all in deep shit, including all the
> surgeons also :-) .

Indeed :-)

0 new messages