前瞻性观察研究:I-FEED 分类在评估全身麻醉下接受择期腰椎手术的患者术后胃肠功能损伤方面的有效性。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Chun-Yu Wu, Chih-Jun Lai, Fu-Ren Xiao, Jen-Ting Yang, Shih-Hung Yang, Dar-Ming Lai, Fon-Yih Tsuang
{"title":"前瞻性观察研究:I-FEED 分类在评估全身麻醉下接受择期腰椎手术的患者术后胃肠功能损伤方面的有效性。","authors":"Chun-Yu Wu, Chih-Jun Lai, Fu-Ren Xiao, Jen-Ting Yang, Shih-Hung Yang, Dar-Ming Lai, Fon-Yih Tsuang","doi":"10.1186/s13741-024-00409-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The I-FEED classification, scored 0-8, was reported to accurately describe the clinical manifestations of gastrointestinal impairment after colorectal surgery. Therefore, it is interesting to determine whether the I-FEED scoring system is also applicable to patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery were enrolled, and the I-FEED score was measured for 4 days after surgery. The I-FEED scoring system incorporates five elements: intake (score: 0, 1, 3), feeling nauseated (score: 0, 1, 3), emesis (score: 0, 1, 3), results of physical exam (score: 0, 1, 3), and duration of symptoms (score: 0, 1, 2). Daily I-FEED scores were summed, and the highest overall score is used to categorize patients into one of three categories: normal (0-2 points), postoperative gastrointestinal intolerance (POGI; 3-5 points), and postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD; 6 + points). The construct validity hypothesis testing determines whether the I-FEED category is consistent with objective clinical findings relevant to gastrointestinal impairment, namely, the longer length of hospital stay (LOS), higher inhospital medical cost, more postoperative gastrointestinal medical treatment, and more postoperative non-gastrointestinal complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 156 patients were enrolled, and 25.0% of patients were categorized as normal, 49.4% POGI, and 25.6% POGD. Patients with higher I-FEED scores agreed with the four validity hypotheses. Patients with POGD had a significantly longer length of hospital stay (1 day longer median stay; p = 0.049) and more inhospital medical costs (approximately 500 Taiwanese dollars; p = 0.037), and more patients with POGD required rectal laxatives (10.3% vs. 32.5% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.026). In addition, more patients with POGD had non-gastrointestinal complications (5.1% vs. 11.7% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.034).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study contributes preliminary validity evidence for the I-FEED score as a measure for postoperative gastrointestinal impairment after elective lumbar spine surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19764,"journal":{"name":"Perioperative Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"50"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11145765/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of the I‑FEED classification in assessing postoperative gastrointestinal impairment in patients undergoing elective lumbar spinal surgery with general anesthesia: a prospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Chun-Yu Wu, Chih-Jun Lai, Fu-Ren Xiao, Jen-Ting Yang, Shih-Hung Yang, Dar-Ming Lai, Fon-Yih Tsuang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13741-024-00409-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The I-FEED classification, scored 0-8, was reported to accurately describe the clinical manifestations of gastrointestinal impairment after colorectal surgery. Therefore, it is interesting to determine whether the I-FEED scoring system is also applicable to patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery were enrolled, and the I-FEED score was measured for 4 days after surgery. The I-FEED scoring system incorporates five elements: intake (score: 0, 1, 3), feeling nauseated (score: 0, 1, 3), emesis (score: 0, 1, 3), results of physical exam (score: 0, 1, 3), and duration of symptoms (score: 0, 1, 2). Daily I-FEED scores were summed, and the highest overall score is used to categorize patients into one of three categories: normal (0-2 points), postoperative gastrointestinal intolerance (POGI; 3-5 points), and postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD; 6 + points). The construct validity hypothesis testing determines whether the I-FEED category is consistent with objective clinical findings relevant to gastrointestinal impairment, namely, the longer length of hospital stay (LOS), higher inhospital medical cost, more postoperative gastrointestinal medical treatment, and more postoperative non-gastrointestinal complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 156 patients were enrolled, and 25.0% of patients were categorized as normal, 49.4% POGI, and 25.6% POGD. Patients with higher I-FEED scores agreed with the four validity hypotheses. Patients with POGD had a significantly longer length of hospital stay (1 day longer median stay; p = 0.049) and more inhospital medical costs (approximately 500 Taiwanese dollars; p = 0.037), and more patients with POGD required rectal laxatives (10.3% vs. 32.5% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.026). In addition, more patients with POGD had non-gastrointestinal complications (5.1% vs. 11.7% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.034).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study contributes preliminary validity evidence for the I-FEED score as a measure for postoperative gastrointestinal impairment after elective lumbar spine surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19764,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perioperative Medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11145765/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perioperative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-024-00409-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perioperative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-024-00409-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:据报道,0-8分的I-FEED分类能准确描述结肠直肠手术后胃肠功能损伤的临床表现。因此,确定 I-FEED 评分系统是否也适用于接受腰椎手术的患者很有意义:方法:对接受择期腰椎手术的成人患者进行登记,并在术后 4 天测量 I-FEED 评分。I-FEED 评分系统包括五个要素:摄入量(分值:0、1、3)、恶心感(分值:0、1、3)、呕吐(分值:0、1、3)、体格检查结果(分值:0、1、3)和症状持续时间(分值:0、1、2)。每日 I-FEED 分数相加,以总分最高者将患者分为三类:正常(0-2 分)、术后胃肠道不耐受(POGI;3-5 分)和术后胃肠道功能障碍(POGD;6+ 分)。建构效度假设检验确定 I-FEED 类别是否与胃肠道功能障碍相关的客观临床结果一致,即住院时间(LOS)更长、住院医疗费用更高、术后胃肠道治疗更多以及术后非胃肠道并发症更多:共有 156 名患者入选,其中 25.0% 的患者被归类为正常,49.4% 的患者被归类为 POGI,25.6% 的患者被归类为 POGD。I-FEED 分数较高的患者符合四个有效性假设。POGD 患者的住院时间明显更长(中位住院时间延长 1 天;p = 0.049),住院医疗费用更高(约 500 台币;p = 0.037),更多 POGD 患者需要使用直肠泻药(10.3% vs. 32.5% vs. 32.5%;p = 0.026)。此外,更多的 POGD 患者出现了非胃肠道并发症(5.1% vs. 11.7% vs. 30.0%;p = 0.034):本研究提供了 I-FEED 评分作为衡量择期腰椎手术后胃肠功能损伤的初步有效性证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity of the I‑FEED classification in assessing postoperative gastrointestinal impairment in patients undergoing elective lumbar spinal surgery with general anesthesia: a prospective observational study.

Background: The I-FEED classification, scored 0-8, was reported to accurately describe the clinical manifestations of gastrointestinal impairment after colorectal surgery. Therefore, it is interesting to determine whether the I-FEED scoring system is also applicable to patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery were enrolled, and the I-FEED score was measured for 4 days after surgery. The I-FEED scoring system incorporates five elements: intake (score: 0, 1, 3), feeling nauseated (score: 0, 1, 3), emesis (score: 0, 1, 3), results of physical exam (score: 0, 1, 3), and duration of symptoms (score: 0, 1, 2). Daily I-FEED scores were summed, and the highest overall score is used to categorize patients into one of three categories: normal (0-2 points), postoperative gastrointestinal intolerance (POGI; 3-5 points), and postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD; 6 + points). The construct validity hypothesis testing determines whether the I-FEED category is consistent with objective clinical findings relevant to gastrointestinal impairment, namely, the longer length of hospital stay (LOS), higher inhospital medical cost, more postoperative gastrointestinal medical treatment, and more postoperative non-gastrointestinal complications.

Results: A total of 156 patients were enrolled, and 25.0% of patients were categorized as normal, 49.4% POGI, and 25.6% POGD. Patients with higher I-FEED scores agreed with the four validity hypotheses. Patients with POGD had a significantly longer length of hospital stay (1 day longer median stay; p = 0.049) and more inhospital medical costs (approximately 500 Taiwanese dollars; p = 0.037), and more patients with POGD required rectal laxatives (10.3% vs. 32.5% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.026). In addition, more patients with POGD had non-gastrointestinal complications (5.1% vs. 11.7% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.034).

Conclusion: This study contributes preliminary validity evidence for the I-FEED score as a measure for postoperative gastrointestinal impairment after elective lumbar spine surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
3.80%
发文量
55
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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