Was just reading on pre 20th century amputations and how they strived to be as fast as possible, cutting through bone and all.
Why didn’t they just amputate at the joint, like a butcher cuts pork or beef? That would have been way faster than sawing off though bone.
In: 8
ELI5 answer: (I’m an orthopedic surgeon for reference) For leg amputations which are the most common its because its harder to fit prosthesis over an actual joint because its very bulky, its easier and more functional to do it above the knee or below the knee
Adult answer:
I’m seeing a lot of half true answers.
The truth is we DO do some amputations through the joint, they are called disarticulations, you can do a hip, knee, or ankle disarticulation for a number of reason. In pediatric patients a knee disarticulation can sometimes be more beneficial than an above knee or below knee amputation.
The main reason we don’t do these typically has nothing to do with the blood supply, you have to identify the vessels and nerves no matter where you do the amputation, its about the prosthesis. With an above knee amputation you can fit a prosthesis with a knee joint, with a below knee amputation you have your own native knee to use. Knee disarticulations are notoriously difficult to fit a prosthesis over.
For upper extremity ampututations it’s a little different because these are not weight bearing joints that have to go through a gait cycle, its more about making the limb as functional as possible for daily activities depending on the demand of the patient, so shoulder, elbow, and wrist disarticulations are more common so we do those relatively frequently (through the joint, not through the bone).
Latest Answers