Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

More Evidence Is Needed for Reconstruction Preserving the First or First Two Rays in Diabetic Foot Amputation

Fu, Xue-Lei; Chen, Hong-Lin, M.D.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: June 2019 - Volume 143 - Issue 6 - p 1315e–1316e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005667

School of Nursing, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

Correspondence to Dr. Chen, QiXiu Road 19#, Nantong, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China,

Back to Top | Article Outline


We read with interest the article entitled “Is Reconstruction Preserving the First Ray or First Two Rays Better than Full Transmetatarsal Amputation in Diabetic Foot?”1 The authors concluded that preservation of the first ray or first two rays with free flap reconstruction functionally benefited the patients. Although the study was well conducted, some points were not well addressed.

First, the sample size in this study was small, with only 59 patients. However, for Cox proportional hazard regression model analysis, positive outcome events equivalent to at least 15 to 20 times the number of covariates were required.2 So, we suggest the authors conduct a research study on a larger sample size.

Second, all patients had a minimum of 12 months of follow-up (range, 12 to 121 months). The follow-up period varied widely; the mean follow-up period was 26 months in the transmetatarsal amputation group and 32 months in the ray group. It may be more useful to think of patients who have achieved wound closure as being in remission rather than being healed, since recurrence is common. The follow-up period was too short and many outcomes were outside the follow-up period. It would have been better if the authors had assessed the prognosis at 5 years, which has been regarded as long-term follow-up.3

Third, retrospective data accumulation was not controlled by researchers, and the integrity and authenticity of the records directly affected the reliability of the results, which may lead to a low level of evidence and great bias. The outcomes are better determined using a blind method, which is used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by the placebo effect or observer bias. Since this study aimed to compare the effects of two different amputation methods in the diabetic foot, a randomized controlled trial might have been a better choice.

Fourth, we thought that risk factors shown in Table 1 were not comprehensive. Common indicators, such as amputation history and ischemia, were associated with reconstructive outcomes.4 We suggest that the authors should have added more risk factors to their study.

Fifth, this study included three outcomes: reconstructive outcomes, additional procedures after initial healing, and functional analysis. The first two outcomes were not significantly different, while the third one suggested that preservation of the first ray or first two rays with free flap reconstruction may functionally benefit the patients. However, the authors also pointed out that progressive deformity of the preserved first and second toes will inevitably occur, requiring patients to undergo further surgery. Therefore, we think preserving the first ray or first two rays in the diabetic foot might not be effective enough. Locally applied antibiotics combined with reconstruction preserving the first ray or first two rays may reduce the probability for further amputation.5

In conclusion, we think more evidence is needed for the effectiveness of reconstruction preserving the first ray or first two rays in diabetic foot amputation.

Back to Top | Article Outline


This work was supported by Innovation Training Program Project of Nantong University (project no. 2018169).

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.

Xue-Lei Fu

Hong-Lin Chen, M.D.

School of Nursing

Nantong University

Nantong, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Suh Y, Kushida-Contreras B, Suk H, et al. Is reconstruction preserving the first ray or first two rays better than full transmetatarsal amputation in diabetic foot? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:294–305.
2. Chen Q. The Sample Size Calculations for Log·Rank Test and Cox Regression in Survival Analysis [master's thesis]. 2009.Shanxi: Shanxi Medical University.
3. Uzzaman MM, Jukaku S, Kambal A, Hussain ST. Assessing the long-term outcomes of minor lower limb amputations: A 5-year study. Angiology 2011;62:365–371.
4. Lenselink E, Holloway S, Eefting D. Outcomes after foot surgery in people with a diabetic foot ulcer and a 12-month follow-up. J Wound Care 2017;26:218–227.
5. Krause FG, deVries G, Meakin C, Kalla TP, Younger AS. Outcome of transmetatarsal amputations in diabetics using antibiotic beads. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30:486–493.
Back to Top | Article Outline


Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.

©2019American Society of Plastic Surgeons