How to measure success in lower extremity reconstruction, which outcome measurements do we use a systematic review and metanalysis

Abstract

Different factors have to be considered and weighted in the treatment algorithm of lower extremity reconstruction. A combination of both clinicians’ and patients’ perspectives is necessary to provide a conclusive picture. Currently, there aren’t any standardized and validated measurement data sets for lower extremity reconstructions. This makes it necessary to identify the relevant domains. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and metanalysis of outcome measurements and evaluated their ability to measure outcomes after lower extremity reconstruction. A systematic review and metanalysis according to the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ protocol were performed for studies reporting at least one structured outcome measurement of lower extremity reconstruction. Both Patient (PROMs)- and Clinician reported outcome measurements (CROMs)were analyzed. Of the 2827 identified articles, 102 were included in the final analysis. In total 86 outcome measurements were identified, 34 CROMs, 44 PROMs and 8 (9.3%) outcome measurements that have elements of both. Twenty-four measure functional outcome, 3 pain, 10 sensations and proprioception, 9 quality of life, 8 satisfaction with the result, 5 measure the aesthetic outcome, 6 contours and flap stability and 21 contain multidomain elements. A multitude of different outcome measurements is currently used in lower extremity reconstruction So far, no consensus has been reached on what to measure and how. Validation and standardization of both PROMs and CROMs in plastic surgery is needed to improve the outcome of our patients, better meet their needs and expectations and eventually optimize extremity reconstruction by enabling a direct comparison of studies’ results.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).