Surgeons will randomly assign 386 patients who need a leg amputation but cannot have a below-knee procedure to either a through-knee or an above-knee amputation, then track their quality of life for two years. No randomised trial has ever compared these two amputation levels directly. Current practice relies on expert opinion and weak observational data, meaning surgeons lack robust evidence to choose between them. A through-knee amputation leaves a longer residual limb, which may improve mobility and rehabilitation, but it also carries different surgical risks. Without clear data, patients may receive a procedure that offers worse long-term outcomes. If the trial shows that through-knee amputations improve quality of life without increasing complications, the research team will produce a training blueprint to help UK surgical centres adopt the technique quickly. The results would directly inform national and international guidelines on major lower limb amputation, potentially changing how thousands of patients each year are treated. The trial also includes a cost-effectiveness analysis, so the NHS would know whether any quality-of-life gain justifies the expense.
View original technical description
Research question: Does a through knee amputation (TKA) confer a quality of life (QoL) advantage over an above knee amputation (AKA) for patients requiring a major lower limb amputation (MLLA) but unsuitable for below knee amputation (BKA)? Background: Almost half of MLLA in the UK are performed higher than a BKA level with the majority of these being performed as AKA procedures. A Cochrane review undertaken by the applicants identified no existing randomised data to determine comparative clinical or rehabilitation outcomes or complication rates of TKA and AKA. Current literature and expert opinion suggests that there may be a functional benefit to the longer residual limb resulting from a TKA but there is no robust evidence at present to support the choice of one level of amputation over another. Recent registry analysis publications have suggested similar surgical outcomes and potential for improved rehabilitation and resultant QoL. Aim: To compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of TKA to that of AKA in patients requiring MLLA but who are unsuitable for BKA. Methods A multicentre, two-arm, non-blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial with parallel groups of adults requiring a MLLA for any reason who are not suitable for BKA. Randomisation will allocate 386 participants on a 1:1 ratio, stratified by indication (traumatic vs non traumatic), frailty, sex and presence of contralateral existing amputation, to either control (AKA) or intervention (TKA) arms. There will be an internal pilot in 12 sites with strict progression criteria pertaining to recruitment and follow up rates. Outcomes are selected to include; those prioritised by our PPI panel, the core outcome set for amputations, and alignment with the commissioned call briefing. Quality of Life (QoL) will be the primary outcome, measured using the EQ5D–5L preoperatively and at 4 monthly time points up to 2 years as per PPI members’ suggestion. Secondary outcomes include qualitative, surgical and rehabilitation outcomes as well as longer term social and functional outcomes (to 24 months post procedure). Cost effectiveness will be determined using QALYs derived using the EQ-5D-5L. PROJECT TIMETABLE: Proposed June 2024 start: (Months) 0-9: Study set up, contracts, regulatory approvals 9-21: Pilot site set-up and recruitment 21: conclude pilot – Stop/Go analysis of feasibility 22: Main trial set up, 45: Complete recruitment 69: Last patient last follow up 69-75: Data cleaning, analysis and report Anticipated impact and dissemination: The HAMLET trial will provide the first robust evidence to guide practice in selection of amputation level for patients who are unsuitable for a BKA. Impact and implementation should be swift as a training “blueprint” will be developed during trial site setup which can be used to rapidly implement TKA in UK centres if proven effective. We anticipate multimodal results dissemination: UK vascular teams will be informed of results via the Vascular society amputation specialist interest group, publications in peer reviewed journals and conference presentations and via vascular research social media channels. Patient facing results dissemination will be via amputation charities, social media and the national press. Results would be expected to directly impact national and international guidelines on MLLA.
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know