虚弱与直肠脱垂修复术前决策的关系。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Journal of Surgical Research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.038
Charlotte M Rajasingh, Madison S McCarthy, Nicolas B Barreto, Amber W Trickey, Caitlin Bungo, Leila Neshatian, Brooke H Gurland
{"title":"虚弱与直肠脱垂修复术前决策的关系。","authors":"Charlotte M Rajasingh, Madison S McCarthy, Nicolas B Barreto, Amber W Trickey, Caitlin Bungo, Leila Neshatian, Brooke H Gurland","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Abdominal and perineal repairs for rectal prolapse are offered to patients based on surgeon assessment of risk. Interpretations of risk can vary. We sought to understand how the preoperative Risk Analysis Index (RAI) score, a validated measure of frailty, aligned with our existing decision-making process for rectal prolapse repair.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Rectal prolapse repair cases were recorded in an Institutional Review Board approved registry from 2017 to 2022. Abdominal and perineal operations were determined based on an experienced surgeon's recommendation. The preoperative RAI was collected; a score≥30 indicates significant frailty. Preoperative and postoperative characteristics were compared using t-tests and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 130 patients underwent abdominal repairs and 51 underwent perineal repairs. Perineal patients were more often frail (abdominal: 9 [7%] versus perineal: 21 [41%], P < 0.001) and had a higher rate of cardiac comorbidities (abdominal: 42 [32%] versus perineal: 35 [69%], P < 0.001). A similar share of patients were undergoing repair for recurrent prolapse (abdominal: n = 29 [22%] versus perineal: n = 11 [22%], P > 0.99). Perineal repair patients were more likely to need assistance with mobility (n = 24 [47%]) and live in a facility (n = 15 [29%]). Patients in both groups recovered well (complication rate abdominal: 28 [22%] versus 11 [22%], P > 0.99) and were satisfied with postoperative outcomes (Patient Global Impression of Change score abdominal: 6 [interquartile range: 6, 7] versus perineal: 6 [5, 7], P = 0.12). Recurrence rates were higher after perineal repair (abdominal: 12 [9%] versus perineal: 20 [39%], P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most abdominal repair patients were not frail, but many nonfrail patients underwent perineal operations based on surgeon perception of comorbidities. Using the RAI tool may provide an opportunity to guide decision-making around operative approach for rectal prolapse and overcome potential surgeon bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":17030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Research","volume":"305 ","pages":"331-336"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association Between Frailty and Preoperative Decision-Making in Rectal Prolapse Repair.\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte M Rajasingh, Madison S McCarthy, Nicolas B Barreto, Amber W Trickey, Caitlin Bungo, Leila Neshatian, Brooke H Gurland\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Abdominal and perineal repairs for rectal prolapse are offered to patients based on surgeon assessment of risk. Interpretations of risk can vary. We sought to understand how the preoperative Risk Analysis Index (RAI) score, a validated measure of frailty, aligned with our existing decision-making process for rectal prolapse repair.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Rectal prolapse repair cases were recorded in an Institutional Review Board approved registry from 2017 to 2022. Abdominal and perineal operations were determined based on an experienced surgeon's recommendation. The preoperative RAI was collected; a score≥30 indicates significant frailty. Preoperative and postoperative characteristics were compared using t-tests and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 130 patients underwent abdominal repairs and 51 underwent perineal repairs. Perineal patients were more often frail (abdominal: 9 [7%] versus perineal: 21 [41%], P < 0.001) and had a higher rate of cardiac comorbidities (abdominal: 42 [32%] versus perineal: 35 [69%], P < 0.001). A similar share of patients were undergoing repair for recurrent prolapse (abdominal: n = 29 [22%] versus perineal: n = 11 [22%], P > 0.99). Perineal repair patients were more likely to need assistance with mobility (n = 24 [47%]) and live in a facility (n = 15 [29%]). Patients in both groups recovered well (complication rate abdominal: 28 [22%] versus 11 [22%], P > 0.99) and were satisfied with postoperative outcomes (Patient Global Impression of Change score abdominal: 6 [interquartile range: 6, 7] versus perineal: 6 [5, 7], P = 0.12). Recurrence rates were higher after perineal repair (abdominal: 12 [9%] versus perineal: 20 [39%], P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most abdominal repair patients were not frail, but many nonfrail patients underwent perineal operations based on surgeon perception of comorbidities. Using the RAI tool may provide an opportunity to guide decision-making around operative approach for rectal prolapse and overcome potential surgeon bias.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Surgical Research\",\"volume\":\"305 \",\"pages\":\"331-336\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Surgical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.038\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:腹部和会阴修复直肠脱垂的病人提供基于外科医生的风险评估。对风险的解释各不相同。我们试图了解术前风险分析指数(RAI)评分是如何与我们现有的直肠脱垂修复决策过程相一致的。方法:直肠脱垂修复病例记录在机构审查委员会批准的登记处,从2017年到2022年。腹部和会阴手术是根据经验丰富的外科医生的建议决定的。收集术前RAI;评分≥30表示明显虚弱。采用t检验和Fisher精确检验比较术前和术后特征。结果:腹部修复130例,会阴修复51例。会阴的患者更容易虚弱(腹部:9[7%],会阴:21 [41%],P 0.99)。会阴修复患者更有可能需要活动辅助(n = 24[47%])和住在医疗机构(n = 15[29%])。两组患者均恢复良好(腹部并发症发生率:28例[22%]对11例[22%],P < 0.99),术后结果满意(患者总体印象变化评分:腹部:6[四分位间距:6,7]对会阴:6 [5,7],P = 0.12)。会阴修复术后复发率较高(腹部:12[9%],会阴:20 [39%],P结论:大多数腹部修复患者并不虚弱,但许多非虚弱患者根据外科医生对合并症的看法接受会阴手术。使用RAI工具可以为直肠脱垂手术入路的决策提供指导,并克服潜在的外科医生偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Association Between Frailty and Preoperative Decision-Making in Rectal Prolapse Repair.

Introduction: Abdominal and perineal repairs for rectal prolapse are offered to patients based on surgeon assessment of risk. Interpretations of risk can vary. We sought to understand how the preoperative Risk Analysis Index (RAI) score, a validated measure of frailty, aligned with our existing decision-making process for rectal prolapse repair.

Methods: Rectal prolapse repair cases were recorded in an Institutional Review Board approved registry from 2017 to 2022. Abdominal and perineal operations were determined based on an experienced surgeon's recommendation. The preoperative RAI was collected; a score≥30 indicates significant frailty. Preoperative and postoperative characteristics were compared using t-tests and Fisher's exact tests.

Results: About 130 patients underwent abdominal repairs and 51 underwent perineal repairs. Perineal patients were more often frail (abdominal: 9 [7%] versus perineal: 21 [41%], P < 0.001) and had a higher rate of cardiac comorbidities (abdominal: 42 [32%] versus perineal: 35 [69%], P < 0.001). A similar share of patients were undergoing repair for recurrent prolapse (abdominal: n = 29 [22%] versus perineal: n = 11 [22%], P > 0.99). Perineal repair patients were more likely to need assistance with mobility (n = 24 [47%]) and live in a facility (n = 15 [29%]). Patients in both groups recovered well (complication rate abdominal: 28 [22%] versus 11 [22%], P > 0.99) and were satisfied with postoperative outcomes (Patient Global Impression of Change score abdominal: 6 [interquartile range: 6, 7] versus perineal: 6 [5, 7], P = 0.12). Recurrence rates were higher after perineal repair (abdominal: 12 [9%] versus perineal: 20 [39%], P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Most abdominal repair patients were not frail, but many nonfrail patients underwent perineal operations based on surgeon perception of comorbidities. Using the RAI tool may provide an opportunity to guide decision-making around operative approach for rectal prolapse and overcome potential surgeon bias.

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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
627
审稿时长
138 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Research: Clinical and Laboratory Investigation publishes original articles concerned with clinical and laboratory investigations relevant to surgical practice and teaching. The journal emphasizes reports of clinical investigations or fundamental research bearing directly on surgical management that will be of general interest to a broad range of surgeons and surgical researchers. The articles presented need not have been the products of surgeons or of surgical laboratories. The Journal of Surgical Research also features review articles and special articles relating to educational, research, or social issues of interest to the academic surgical community.
×
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