Functional morbidity of hyperthermic isolated regional perfusion of the extremities

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Isolated regional perfusion (IRP) of an extremity is a major operation. The therapeutic value for stage I melanoma is still controversial and is presently being investigated in a prospective, randomized study by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. So far there are no reliable data available concerning the morbidity of IRP. Therefore, we performed a prospective, randomized study on this topic. Methods: In a prospective study, a group of 97 patients with a stage I melanoma localized on an arm or leg were randomized for IRP with melphalan followed by wide excision (WE) and fasciotomyor for WE only. Morbidity was evaluated on the basis of the following parameters: duration of hospitalization, postoperative pain, postoperative performance, and grade of perfusion toxicity. At 12-month follow-up, a physical diagnostic examination was performed to measure the mobility of the joints, and the circumference and volume of the treated and untreated extremities. Results: All the parameters, including the physical diagnostic examination, could be evaluated in 83 of the 97 patients (8 patients died of metastatic disease and 1 patient died of another disease before they could be investigated; 2 patients were in too poor physical condition due to metastases to be examined, and 3 patients were unable to participate for nonmedical reasons). Age and sex distribution were comparable in the various patient groups. Treatment mortality was 0%. There were no complications except for urine retention (one patient) and wound dehiscence (one patient). After IRP + WE of the lower limb, the period of hospitalization was an average of 1.9 days longer (p=0.01) than for WE on the limb only. This difference was absent for the arm. Naturally after perfusion, there was a significant difference in toxic reactions (edema and pain) between the IRP + WE patients and the WE-only patients. However, at 12-month follow-up, the difference in morbidity between IRP + WE and WE-only patients was no longer present: Morbidity of joints and circumference of the limb were the same. A number of subjective complaints were encountered fairly often after IRP + WE (e.g., pricking sensations or pain during changes in the weather), which can possibly be explained by fibrosis caused by perfusion. These complaints were not quantified further because they did not hinder the patients' functioning. Conclusions: In the long term, IRP with fasciotomy does not cause any additional morbidity. Immediately after the operation, there was more morbidity as a result of the perfusion, which caused a 2-day- longer period of hospitalization in the patients with lower-limb perfusion compared with those who underwent WE only. These findings are in contrast to those in the literature, in which 25% limitation of motion in the ankle joint after perfusion is mentioned. One explanation may be that we always performed fasciotomy after perfusion to prevent (sub)clinical compression syndrome and avoid late fibrosis.