Upper-extremity self-amputation in a case of dissociative identity disorder

Body integrity dysphoria and moral responsibility: an interpretation of the scepticism regarding on-demand amputations

A patient who requests an amputation deemed medically unnecessary by professionals is disqualified per se from being regarded as having medical decision-making capacity. This decision is based on the assumption that there is an option to pursue something other than amputation; such an assumption in many cases overflows into therapeutic obstinacy. This is the case for individuals who have ill or damaged body parts and who wish to avoid recurrent and painful medical treatment designed to save the limb, as well as for individuals affected by body integrity dysphoria (BID). BID is a condition that is recognised by the WHO and is included in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition. Individuals who are affected develop an intense feeling of overcompleteness of their body configuration, which leads to the development of a strong sense of dysphoria and consequently the desire to amputate in order to remove the source of such discomfort. In the few cases in which amputation has been carried out, the results have proved successful; the individual's quality of life has improved and they have had no new amputation desires. No medical therapy, including medical amputation, is available currently for individuals affected by the condition. This situation leads many with BID to mutilate themselves. Such events create a challenging ethical dilemma for the medical world.The present paper is focused on the capacity of the individual with BID to do other than request amputation and the implications that this carries regarding moral responsibility. It is proposed that the autonomy of the patient cannot be disqualified by default based on the amputation request, despite its oddity, and that any scepticism demonstrated by the physicians is based on a false preconception of ill will or ignorance, which results in a blaming attitude towards the requesting person.

Management of Self-Inflicted Nonaccidental Amputations of the Upper Extremity: Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Clinicians assessing patients with deliberate self-inflicted amputations face a problem of whether or not to replant. The objective of this study was to summarize the literature on this topic and provide recommendations regarding the acute management of patients following self-inflicted amputations in the upper extremity.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched four databases using the keywords "Upper extremity," "Amputation," and "Self-Inflicted." The reviewers systematically screened and collected data on publications reporting cases of self-inflicted upper-extremity amputations. The findings then were summarized in a narrative fashion.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included. Twenty-nine cases of self-inflicted upper-extremity amputations were reported. There were 25 unilateral and four bilateral extremity amputations. Amputations were most commonly at the hand/wrist (18 patients) and forearm level (6 patients). The amputations were most commonly performed with a saw (9 patients) or a knife (8 patients). Reasons for amputation included psychosis (10 cases), suicide attempt (7 cases), depression (5 cases), and body integrity identity disorder (four cases). Fifteen replantations were performed; all were successful. Reasons for not pursuing replantation were related to injury factors (ie, multilevel injury, prolonged ischemia, damaged part) rather than patient-level factors. Two patients with replantable extremities declined replantation, both of whom had body integrity identity disorder. Of the patients who underwent replantation, none expressed regret.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature shows that patients experiencing psychosis or depression committed self-harm during an acute psychiatric decompensation, and once medically and psychiatrically stabilized, expressed satisfaction with their replanted limb. Surgeons should not consider psychiatric decompensation a contraindication to replantation and should be aware of patients with body integrity identity disorder who consciously may elect to undergo revision amputation. When presented with patients experiencing psychiatric decompensation who refuse replantation/are not competent, surgeons should seek emergency assistance from the psychiatry team to determine the best management of a self-inflicted amputation.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy/Prevention/Etiology/Harm V.

Is self-inflicted amputation to the upper extremity a contraindication to replantation?

PURPOSE

Contraindications to replantation include severe medical or psychiatric comorbidities. Recently, authors have suggested that due to the improving therapeutic options for patients with psychiatric decompensation, this should no longer be listed as a contraindication to replantation. Despite this, authors continue to list severe psychiatric comorbidities as a contraindication to replantation. This case series and review of the literature discusses this complex topic and provides recommendations regarding the management of patients following upper extremity self-inflicted amputations.

METHODS

The authors present two cases of self-inflicted upper extremity amputations. The cases depict the acute management and the outcomes of these patients. The authors also reviewed the literature to present the available literature on this topic.

RESULTS

The first case is a 64-year-old male who deliberately amputated his left hand with a table saw while suffering postictal psychosis. He underwent replantation. The patient was co-managed by the surgical and psychiatric team postoperatively. The patient expressed gratitude for his replantation after being treated for his psychoneurological condition. The second case is that of a 25-year-old male who deliberately amputated his left forearm using a Samurai sword. The patient's limb was successfully replanted. In the post-anesthesia care unit, the patient experienced extreme agitation, and during this event, he reinjured the left forearm. He was again taken urgently to the operating room to revise the replantation. Once psychiatrically stabilized, the patient was thankful for the care he received.

CONCLUSION

The management of upper extremity self-inflicted amputations is controversial and difficult to establish as this presentation is rare. We present two cases which illustrate some of the nuances in the care of these patients. Our review suggests that psychiatric diagnosis be viewed as a comorbidity and not a contraindication to replantation. Thus, an informed consent discussion should be performed with the patients and, as needed, a member of the psychiatric team in order to decide whether to replant or not.

Body integrity identity disorder: the persistent desire to acquire a physical disability

BACKGROUND

Body integrity identity disorder (BIID) is a rare and unusual psychiatric condition characterized by a persistent desire to acquire a physical disability (e.g., amputation, paraplegia) since childhood that to date has not been formally described in the psychiatric nosology. Most BIID sufferers experience a chronic and dysphoric sense of inappropriateness regarding their being able-bodied, and many have been driven to actualize their desired disability through surreptitious surgical or other more dangerous methods. This review aims to characterize the history and phenomenology of this condition, to present its differential diagnosis, and to consider possible etiologies, treatment options, and ethical considerations.

SAMPLING AND METHOD

Review of the psychiatric and neurological literature.

RESULTS

A growing body of data suggests the existence of a discrete entity with onset by early adolescence and a negative impact on functioning. Parallel neurological conditions and preliminary experimental investigations suggest a possible neurobiological component in at least a portion of cases. While attempts at treatment have been described, no systematic evidence for efficacy has emerged.

DISCUSSION

BIID is a unique nosological entity with significant consequences for its sufferers and as such may warrant inclusion in some form in the forthcoming DSM-5 and ICD-11.

Major self-mutilation in the first episode of psychosis

Major self-mutilation (MSM) is a rare but catastrophic complication of severe mental illness. Most people who inflict MSM have a psychotic disorder, usually a schizophrenia spectrum psychosis. It is not known when in the course of psychotic illness, MSM is most likely to occur. In this study, the proportion of patients in first episode of psychosis (FEP) was assessed using the results of a systematic review of published case reports. Histories of patients who had removed an eye or a testicle, severed their penis, or amputated a portion of a limb and were diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum psychosis were included. A psychotic illness was documented in 143 of 189 cases (75.6%) of MSM, of whom 119 of 143 (83.2%) were diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum psychosis. The treatment status of a schizophrenia spectrum psychosis could be ascertained in 101 of the case reports, of which 54 were in the FEP (53.5%, 95% confidence interval = 43.7%-63.2%). Patients who inflict MSM in FEP exhibited similar symptoms to those who inflict MSM later in their illness. Acute psychosis, in particular first-episode schizophrenia, appears to be the major cause of MSM. Although MSM is extremely uncommon, earlier treatment of psychotic illness may reduce the incidence of MSM.

Preliminary evidence for a fronto-parietal dysfunction in able-bodied participants with a desire for limb amputation

BACKGROUND

Reports of able-bodied participants with the persisting desire for limb amputation raise legal and ethical questions that are partly due to insufficient empirical knowledge about the condition. Here, we searched for potential neurological mechanisms in participants with desire for limb amputation in order to help develop adequate nosological classifications, diagnosis, and treatment.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 20 participants who self-identified themselves as able-bodied individuals desiring amputation of a limb.

RESULTS

The results suggest that amputation desire is not unspecific, but in most cases specific for a circumscribed part of the body. Most frequently affected was the leg, mostly on the left, non-dominant side. Left-sidedness and limb specificity was associated with elementary and complex somatosensory disturbances of the affected limb akin to those reported by neurological patients. The most frequent neurological co-morbidity was migraine headache.

CONCLUSIONS

These results document the existence of an unusual condition in able-bodied participants characterized by a person's desire for the amputation of one or more particular limbs. Left-sidedness, limb specificity and somatosensory disturbances of the affected limb are suggestive of abnormal brain mechanisms in right fronto-parietal cortex. Based on this association we suggest that desire for limb amputation may be conceptualized as asomatognosia due to disturbed integration of multi-sensory information of the affected body parts into a coherent cerebral representation of the own body. This suggestion has to be regarded with caution as we did not perform any neurological examination.