Outcomes and Complications After Elective Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Fusion in Elderly Patients: A Comparison of Methods to Predict Adverse Events.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Omar Ramos, Benjamin Mueller, Amir Mehbod, Bayard Carlson
{"title":"Outcomes and Complications After Elective Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Fusion in Elderly Patients: A Comparison of Methods to Predict Adverse Events.","authors":"Omar Ramos, Benjamin Mueller, Amir Mehbod, Bayard Carlson","doi":"10.1177/21925682241300977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The current study compares the ability of the modified Frailty Index (mFI), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the modified Charleston Comorbidity Index (mCCI), the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC), and the Fusion Risk Score (FRS) to predict perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Comorbidity indices were calculated for patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar spinal fusion at a single institution and assessed for their discriminative ability in predicting the desired outcomes using an area under the curve (AUC) analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>393 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients being treated for adult spinal deformity (ASD) had the highest rate of complications (44.4%). The FRS had acceptable discrimination (AUC >0.7) and the highest ability among the methods studied to predict any adverse effects, new neurological deficit, return to OR within 90 days, and surgical site infection. It had good discrimination ability (AUC >0.8) predicting durotomy, respiratory failure (RF) requiring intubation, hemodynamic instability, and sepsis. The SRC had acceptable discrimination and highest ability to predict deep venous thrombosis (DVT). The mCCI had excellent and the highest ability to predict acute renal failure (ARF). For the other outcomes, the indices had either poor predictive ability (AUC 0.6-0.7) or no discriminative ability (AUC <0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The FRS had a better ability than the ASA, mCCI, mFI, and SRC to predict the most perioperative adverse events and reoperation. Further study is needed to develop preoperative indices with better predictive ability of postoperative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682241300977"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11577552/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241300977","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective study.

Objectives: The current study compares the ability of the modified Frailty Index (mFI), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the modified Charleston Comorbidity Index (mCCI), the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC), and the Fusion Risk Score (FRS) to predict perioperative outcomes.

Methods: Comorbidity indices were calculated for patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar spinal fusion at a single institution and assessed for their discriminative ability in predicting the desired outcomes using an area under the curve (AUC) analysis.

Results: 393 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients being treated for adult spinal deformity (ASD) had the highest rate of complications (44.4%). The FRS had acceptable discrimination (AUC >0.7) and the highest ability among the methods studied to predict any adverse effects, new neurological deficit, return to OR within 90 days, and surgical site infection. It had good discrimination ability (AUC >0.8) predicting durotomy, respiratory failure (RF) requiring intubation, hemodynamic instability, and sepsis. The SRC had acceptable discrimination and highest ability to predict deep venous thrombosis (DVT). The mCCI had excellent and the highest ability to predict acute renal failure (ARF). For the other outcomes, the indices had either poor predictive ability (AUC 0.6-0.7) or no discriminative ability (AUC <0.6).

Conclusions: The FRS had a better ability than the ASA, mCCI, mFI, and SRC to predict the most perioperative adverse events and reoperation. Further study is needed to develop preoperative indices with better predictive ability of postoperative outcomes.

老年患者选择性胸椎和腰椎融合术后的疗效和并发症:预测不良事件的方法比较。
研究设计回顾性研究:本研究比较了改良虚弱指数(mFI)、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分类、改良查尔斯顿合并症指数(mCCI)、美国外科学院手术风险计算器(SRC)和融合风险评分(FRS)预测围手术期结果的能力:方法:计算在一家医疗机构接受择期胸椎和腰椎融合术的患者的合并症指数,并使用曲线下面积(AUC)分析评估其预测预期结果的鉴别能力:393名患者符合纳入和排除标准。接受成人脊柱畸形(ASD)治疗的患者并发症发生率最高(44.4%)。FRS具有可接受的辨别能力(AUC>0.7),在所研究的方法中预测任何不良反应、新的神经功能缺损、90天内重返手术室和手术部位感染的能力最高。它在预测穹隆切开术、需要插管的呼吸衰竭 (RF)、血流动力学不稳定和败血症方面具有良好的鉴别能力(AUC >0.8)。SRC 在预测深静脉血栓(DVT)方面具有可接受的分辨能力和最高的预测能力。mCCI 预测急性肾衰竭(ARF)的能力极佳且最高。对于其他结果,这些指数要么预测能力较差(AUC 0.6-0.7),要么没有分辨能力(AUC 结论):与 ASA、mCCI、mFI 和 SRC 相比,FRS 预测围术期不良事件和再次手术的能力更强。还需要进一步研究,以开发出对术后结果有更好预测能力的术前指数。
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
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
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