Emergency laparotomy preoperative risk assessment tool performance: A systematic review

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY
Joseph N. Hewitt , Thomas J. Milton , Jack Jeanes , Ishraq Murshed , Silas Nann , Susanne Wells , Aashray K. Gupta , Christopher D. Ovenden , Joshua G. Kovoor , Stephen Bacchi , Christopher Dobbins , Markus I. Trochsler
{"title":"Emergency laparotomy preoperative risk assessment tool performance: A systematic review","authors":"Joseph N. Hewitt ,&nbsp;Thomas J. Milton ,&nbsp;Jack Jeanes ,&nbsp;Ishraq Murshed ,&nbsp;Silas Nann ,&nbsp;Susanne Wells ,&nbsp;Aashray K. Gupta ,&nbsp;Christopher D. Ovenden ,&nbsp;Joshua G. Kovoor ,&nbsp;Stephen Bacchi ,&nbsp;Christopher Dobbins ,&nbsp;Markus I. Trochsler","doi":"10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Preoperative assessment of risk for emergency laparotomy may enhance decision making with regards to urgency or perioperative critical care admission and promote a more informed consent process for patients. Accordingly, we aimed to assess the performance of risk assessment tools in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched to 12 February 2022 for observational studies reporting expected mortality based on a preoperative risk assessment and actual mortality after emergency laparotomy. Study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist were performed in duplicate. Data on setting, operation undertaken, expected and actual mortality rates were extracted. Meta-analysis was planned but not possible due to heterogeneity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022299227.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From 10,168 records, 82 observational studies were included. 17 risk assessment tools were described, the most common of which were P-POSSUM (42 studies), POSSUM (13 studies), NELA (12 studies) and MPI (11 studies). Articles were published between 1990 and 2022 with the most common country of origin being the UK (33 studies) followed by India (11 studies). Meta-analysis was not possible. Observed mortality and expected mortality based on risk assessment is reported for each study and generally shows most studies show accurate risk prediction.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This review synthesises available literature to characterise the performance of various risk assessment tools in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy. Findings from this study may benefit those undertaking emergency laparotomy and future research in risk prediction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74890,"journal":{"name":"Surgery in practice and science","volume":"19 ","pages":"Article 100264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery in practice and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Preoperative assessment of risk for emergency laparotomy may enhance decision making with regards to urgency or perioperative critical care admission and promote a more informed consent process for patients. Accordingly, we aimed to assess the performance of risk assessment tools in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched to 12 February 2022 for observational studies reporting expected mortality based on a preoperative risk assessment and actual mortality after emergency laparotomy. Study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist were performed in duplicate. Data on setting, operation undertaken, expected and actual mortality rates were extracted. Meta-analysis was planned but not possible due to heterogeneity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022299227.

Results

From 10,168 records, 82 observational studies were included. 17 risk assessment tools were described, the most common of which were P-POSSUM (42 studies), POSSUM (13 studies), NELA (12 studies) and MPI (11 studies). Articles were published between 1990 and 2022 with the most common country of origin being the UK (33 studies) followed by India (11 studies). Meta-analysis was not possible. Observed mortality and expected mortality based on risk assessment is reported for each study and generally shows most studies show accurate risk prediction.

Conclusions

This review synthesises available literature to characterise the performance of various risk assessment tools in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy. Findings from this study may benefit those undertaking emergency laparotomy and future research in risk prediction.
急诊开腹手术术前风险评估工具的性能:系统回顾
背景对急诊开腹手术的术前风险评估可加强对急诊或围术期重症监护入院的决策,并促进患者在更知情的情况下同意手术。因此,我们旨在评估风险评估工具在预测急诊开腹手术后死亡率方面的性能。方法检索了PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和CINAHL截至2022年2月12日的观察性研究,这些研究报告了基于术前风险评估的预期死亡率和急诊开腹手术后的实际死亡率。研究筛选、数据提取和使用 Downs and Black 检查表的偏倚风险均一式两份。提取了有关环境、手术、预期死亡率和实际死亡率的数据。计划进行 Meta 分析,但由于存在异质性而无法进行。本研究已在 PROSPERO 注册,CRD42022299227。结果从 10,168 条记录中,共纳入了 82 项观察性研究。描述了 17 种风险评估工具,其中最常见的是 P-POSSUM(42 项研究)、POSSUM(13 项研究)、NELA(12 项研究)和 MPI(11 项研究)。文章发表于 1990 年至 2022 年之间,最常见的来源国是英国(33 项研究),其次是印度(11 项研究)。无法进行元分析。每项研究都报告了基于风险评估的观察死亡率和预期死亡率,总体而言,大多数研究都显示出准确的风险预测。本研究的结果可能会对进行急诊开腹手术的人员和未来的风险预测研究有所裨益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信