Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.


Elbow and Above-Elbow Amputations

  • Author: Scott G Edwards, MD; Chief Editor: Harris Gellman, MD  more...
Updated: Dec 23, 2015


Upper-extremity amputations largely follow the same basic principles as any other amputation.[1] This article highlights the special considerations involved in acquired amputations at or above the elbow. Below-elbow amputations are discussed in separate articles (see Wrist and Forearm Amputations and Digital Amputations). Although acquired amputations in children are discussed (because pediatric patients deserve special consideration), patients with congenital limb amputations and deficiencies are beyond the scope of this article.

The true frequency of acquired amputation at or above the elbow is unknown. Published estimates of the number and rate of limb amputations, including upper-extremity amputations, vary significantly; totals ranging from 350,000 to 1,000,000 persons with amputations have been cited, as have rates of 20,000-30,000 persons per year for patients undergoing amputation.

Amputation is one of the oldest surgical procedures. Archeologists have uncovered evidence of amputation—congenital and acquired through surgery or trauma—in prehistoric humans. Whereas surgical amputation has evolved significantly since the days of quickly severing a limb from an unanesthetized patient and dipping the stump in boiling oil to achieve hemostasis, modern ideas of amputation and prosthetics were not developed until World Wars I and II. Particularly since the late 20th century, prosthetic research and rehabilitation engineering centers supported by federal funding have disseminated new information regarding biomechanics and prosthetic design.

With the advent of physical and rehabilitative medicine, surgeons now realize that care for a person who has undergone an amputation does not end with the removal of sutures.

As medical technology and surgical techniques are improved in the areas of peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, microsurgery and limb salvage, the number of amputations will consequently decrease. Ethical questions of "technology over reason" will come to the forefront.

An example of this debate can be observed with the advent of upper-extremity transplantation. Although transplantation offers an attractive alternative to amputation, further discussion is needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of such procedures. Does the functional gain of transplantation justify the use of resources involved and commitment of the patient to lifelong immunosuppressive therapy?[2]

Although the surgical technique of amputation has stabilized and is not likely to undergo radical advances in the near future, prosthetic advances are likely to lead to improvements in function and quality of life of an individual with an amputation.[3] Likewise, much research has focused on gaining a better understanding of the problem of phantom sensations as it relates to the reorganizational changes in the somatosensory system.[4] Many questions remain unanswered.



Irreparable loss of the blood supply of a diseased or injured upper extremity is the only absolute indication for amputation, regardless of all other circumstances. Severe instances of peripheral vascular disease, traumatic injury, thermal and electrical injury, and frostbite commonly necessitate amputation.[5] The part not only has been rendered useless but is also a threat to the life of the individual because the toxic products of tissue destruction are disseminated systemically. It is important to remember that no injury severity score exists as a guide for severe upper-extremity trauma. Much of the decision-making is left to the surgeon.

Likewise, in individuals with systemic sepsis, amputations are necessary to control an otherwise rampant infection. Occasionally, an injury or condition that does not directly affect a limb's vasculature has disabled the upper extremity to the point where a prosthesis would be functionally superior to the limb. The usual indication for amputation after nerve injury is the development of uncontrolled trophic ulcers in an anesthetic upper extremity.

Amputation is rarely indicated in persons with quadriplegia even if the upper extremities have no residual function. Often, the upper extremities help maintain balance when the patient is sitting and serve to distribute the forces of weightbearing over a larger area, thus minimizing pressure sores.

In general, amputations in the upper extremity are also indicated for persons with malignant tumors without evidence of metastases. Even after metastases appear, amputation may be necessary for local tumor control and to relieve pain when a neoplasm has become ulcerated and infected or has caused a pathologic fracture.[6] In these oncologic cases, the indications for amputation versus a limb salvage procedure are evolving constantly and warrant individual consideration to a degree that is beyond the scope of this article.



The only absolute contraindication to amputation is a situation where sparing a limb or part of a limb would leave the patient better able to function than an amputation would.


Technical Considerations


The elbow joint is composed of the distal end of the humerus and the proximal ends of the radius and the ulna. The humerus contributes the humeral condyle, composed of the trochlea medially from anterior to posterior and the capitulum laterally on the anterior aspect, to the articular surface of the elbow joint. The humeral condyle itself is a rounded, almost tubelike structure that occupies most of the space of the distal end of the humerus and is located centrally. The condyle is covered in articular cartilage and allows the hooking-on of the C-shaped trochlear notch of the ulna and the concave superior aspect of the head of the radius.

The humerus has small indentations just superior to the condyle on the anterior aspect; the radial fossa (laterally) and the coronoid fossa (medially) allow the humerus to accept the head of the radius and the coronoid process of the ulna when the joint is in full flexion.

On the central aspect of the posterior humerus above the trochlea of the humeral condyle is the olecranon fossa, which allows the humerus to accept the olecranon of the ulna when the joint is in extension. The olecranon is the proximal end of the ulna, from which the C-shaped trochlea notch is carved.

For more information about the relevant anatomy, see Elbow Joint Anatomy. For a discussion of anatomy relevant to surgery, refer to individual surgical descriptions in Technique.

Procedural planning

The surgeon faces many challenges over the course of treating an individual by means of amputation. The surgeon must determine the salvageability of a limb, an assessment that is often made quickly in cases of trauma or sepsis. Once the decision to amputate has been made, the level of amputation must be determined (see the image below). The functional limitations of amputation levels and prosthetic designs, as well as the patient's emotional, physical, and vocational background, must be considered carefully, especially with upper-extremity amputations.

The various levels of an upper extremity amputatio The various levels of an upper extremity amputation.

Thus, the surgeon walks a precarious tightrope. Preservation of length in the upper extremity is paramount, but it often can be achieved only by sacrificing stump viability, appropriate bone coverage and padding, and, occasionally, optimal prosthetic fitting.

The surgical procedure itself has its own risks from anesthesia and cardiovascular collapse, as well as early postoperative infections and pulmonary embolism. Events that occur later, and are perhaps more specific to individuals with amputations, include joint contractures, phantom limb pain, neuroma formation, stump breakdown, and, in children, bony overgrowth.[7]

Unlike some orthopedic patients, individuals with amputations should undergo comprehensive physical and emotional rehabilitation. A person with an amputation is a patient for life. Close coordination with a team of specialists in physiatry or rehabilitative medicine, as well as with a prosthetist, a physical therapist, and a psychologist, is ideal.

The following are major goals of upper-extremity amputation surgery:

  • Preservation of functional length
  • Durable coverage
  • Preservation of useful sensation
  • Prevention of symptomatic neuromas
  • Prevention of adjacent joint contractures
  • Minimization of short- and long-term morbidity
  • Early prosthetic fitting, when applicable
  • Early return of the patient to work and play


Persons who have amputations that are performed at the appropriate level and with proper surgical technique do very well. The complications (see Technique) are generally prevented or successfully managed. A patient's attitude, motivation, and desire before amputation strongly influence the overall outcome after the procedure. However, if proper follow-up care and rehabilitation are not coordinated with a multispecialty team of surgeons, physical therapists, physiatrists, prosthetists, and psychologists, then a less optimal result is inevitable.

Generally, the longer the residual stump, the greater the residual function, with or without a prosthesis. A study examining the outcomes of upper-extremity amputations found that individuals with below-elbow amputations more easily performed two-handed activities than did persons with above-elbow amputations.[8] However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the performance of activities of daily living. Patients with bilateral above-elbow amputations were more proficient with activities of daily living than they were with two-handed activities.

Rickelt et al retrospectively studied 40 patients who had a forequarter amputation (FQA) for malignant disease of the shoulder girdle.[9] They concluded that FQA may offer the only possibility of cure in locoregional disease such as sarcoma. They added, however, that in patients with axillary metastasis, FQA has no impact on survival, though local control may improve the patient's quality of life.[9]

Flurry et al studied the use of composite free fillet flaps in 8 patients to cover proximal humeral and shoulder defects associated with upper-arm traumatic amputations.[10] They found that immediate soft-tissue coverage using composite free fillet flaps from amputated limbs can be successful, with few complications, and can preserve limb length while maximizing available tissue. In addition, the authors noted that including flexor muscle belly adjacent to the vascular pedicles provides additional coverage and a well-vascularized composite flap to aid in prosthetic fitting and comfort.

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Scott G Edwards, MD Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Georgetown University; Consulting Surgeon, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Greater Metropolitan Orthopedics

Scott G Edwards, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Society for Surgery of the Hand

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


A Lee Osterman, MD Director of Hand Surgery Fellowship, Director, Philadelphia Hand Center; Director, Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Hand Surgery, University Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Michael Yaszemski, MD, PhD Associate Professor, Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Bioengineering, Mayo Foundation, Mayo Medical School

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Harris Gellman, MD Consulting Surgeon, Broward Hand Center; Voluntary Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Surgery, University of Miami, Leonard M Miller School of Medicine; Clinical Professor of Surgery, Nova Southeastern School of Medicine

Harris Gellman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Medical Acupuncture, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Association, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Arkansas Medical Society, Florida Medical Association, Florida Orthopaedic Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Michael S Clarke, MD Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine

Michael S Clarke, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Arthroscopy Association of North America, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Hand Surgery, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, Clinical Orthopaedic Society, Mid-Central States Orthopaedic Society, Missouri State Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

  1. Fitzgibbons P, Medvedev G. Functional and Clinical Outcomes of Upper Extremity Amputation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015 Dec. 23 (12):751-60. [Medline].

  2. Jones NF, Schneeberger S. Arm transplantation: prospects and visions. Transplant Proc. 2009 Mar. 41(2):476-80. [Medline].

  3. Dumanian GA, Ko JH, O'Shaughnessy KD, Kim PS, Wilson CJ, Kuiken TA. Targeted reinnervation for transhumeral amputees: current surgical technique and update on results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Sep. 124(3):863-9. [Medline].

  4. Gagné M, Reilly KT, Hétu S, Mercier C. Motor control over the phantom limb in above-elbow amputees and its relationship with phantom limb pain. Neuroscience. 2009 Aug 4. 162(1):78-86. [Medline].

  5. Sauerbier M, Ofer N, Germann G, et al. Microvascular reconstruction in burn and electrical burn injuries of the severely traumatized upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Feb. 119(2):605-15. [Medline].

  6. Puhaindran ME, Chou J, Forsberg JA, Athanasian EA. Major upper-limb amputations for malignant tumors. J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Jun. 37(6):1235-41. [Medline].

  7. Chennakeshaviah G, Ravishankar S, Maggad R, Manjunath GV. Solitary Giant Intramuscular Myxoid Neurofibroma Resulting in an above Elbow Amputation. Case Rep Pathol. 2012. 2012:353215. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  8. Spikowska A, Stryla W. [Analysis of quality of life in persons after arm amputations]. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2000. 65(6):665-73. [Medline].

  9. Rickelt J, Hoekstra H, van Coevorden F, de Vreeze R, Verhoef C, van Geel AN. Forequarter amputation for malignancy. Br J Surg. 2009 Jul. 96(7):792-8. [Medline].

  10. Flurry M, Melissinos EG, Livingston CK. Composite forearm free fillet flaps to preserve stump length following traumatic amputations of the upper extremity. Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Apr. 60(4):391-4. [Medline].

  11. Affleck DG, Edelman L, Morris SE. Assessment of tissue viability in complex extremity injuries: utility of the pyrophosphate nuclear scan. J Trauma. 2001 Feb. 50(2):263-9. [Medline].

  12. Malone JM, Fleming LL, Roberson J. Immediate, early, and late postsurgical management of upper-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1984 May. 21(1):33-41. [Medline].

  13. de Luccia N, Marino HL. Fitting of electronic elbow on an elbow disarticulated patient by means of a new surgical technique. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000 Dec. 24(3):247-51. [Medline].

  14. Qadir R, Sidhu S, Romine L, Meyer MS, Duncan SF. Interscapulothoracic (forequarter) amputation for malignant tumors involving the upper extremity: surgical technique and case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jun. 23 (6):e127-33. [Medline].

  15. Berger P. De l'Amputation du Membre Superieur dans la Contiguite du Tronc (Amputation Interscapulo-Thoracique). Paris, France: G Masson; 1887.

  16. Littlewood H. Amputations at the Shoulder and at the Hip. BJM. 1922. 1:381-3.

  17. Roth JA, Sugarbaker PH, Baker AR. Radical forequarter amputation with chest wall resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 1984 May. 37(5):423-7. [Medline].

  18. Rodriguez JA, Craven JE, Heinrich S. Current role of scapulectomy. Am Surg. 1999 Dec. 65(12):1167-70. [Medline].

  19. Mercier C, Reilly KT, Vargas CD, et al. Mapping phantom movement representations in the motor cortex of amputees. Brain. 2006 Aug. 129(Pt 8):2202-10. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  20. Schley MT, Wilms P, Toepfner S, Schaller HP, Schmelz M, Konrad CJ, et al. Painful and nonpainful phantom and stump sensations in acute traumatic amputees. J Trauma. 2008 Oct. 65(4):858-64. [Medline].

  21. De Graaf JB, Jarrassé N, Nicol C, Touillet A, Coyle T, Maynard L, et al. Phantom hand and wrist movements in upper limb amputees are slow but naturally controlled movements. Neuroscience. 2015 Nov 10. 312:48-57. [Medline].

  22. Speer DP. The pathogenesis of amputation stump overgrowth. Clin Orthop. 1981 Sep. (159):294-307. [Medline].

  23. Grunert BK, Hargarten SW, Matloub HS, et al. Predictive value of psychological screening in acute hand injuries. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1992 Mar. 17(2):196-9. [Medline].

  24. Baccarani A, Follmar KE, De Santis G, et al. Free vascularized tissue transfer to preserve upper extremity amputation levels. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Sep 15. 120(4):971-81. [Medline].

  25. Dettmers C, Adler T, Rzanny R. Increased excitability in the primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area in patients with phantom limb pain after upper limb amputation. Neurosci Lett. 2001 Jul 13. 307(2):109-12. [Medline].

  26. Hoppenfield S, deBoer P. The humerus. Surgical Exposures in Orthopaedics: The Anatomic Approach. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1994. 72-83.

  27. Karl A, Birbaumer N, Lutzenberger W. Reorganization of motor and somatosensory cortex in upper extremity amputees with phantom limb pain. J Neurosci. 2001 May 15. 21(10):3609-18. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  28. Levy CE, Bryant PR, Spires MC, et al. Acquired limb deficiencies. 4. Troubleshooting. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Mar. 82(3 Suppl 1):S25-30. [Medline].

  29. Louis DS, Jebson PJL, Graham TJ. Amputations. Green DP, Hotchkiss RN, Pederson WC, eds. Green's Operative Hand Surgery. 4th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1999. 48-94.

  30. Pandian G, Huang ME, Duffy DA. Acquired limb deficiencies. 2. Perioperative management. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Mar. 82(3 Suppl 1):S9-S16. [Medline].

  31. Schwenkreis P, Witscher K, Janssen F. Assessment of reorganization in the sensorimotor cortex after upper limb amputation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Apr. 112(4):627-35. [Medline].

  32. Tooms RE. General principles of amputations. Canale ST, ed. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 9th ed. St Louis, Mo: CV Mosby; 1998. 521-31.

  33. Tooms RE. Amputations of upper extremity. Canale ST, ed. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 9th ed. St Louis, Mo: CV Mosby; 1998. 550-60.

The various levels of an upper extremity amputation.
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.