创伤性脊髓损伤手术患者虚弱评分的预测能力:TQIP分析。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Maximilian Peter Forssten, Lovisa Ekestubbe, Yang Cao, Ahmad Mohammad Ismail, Ioannis Ioannidis, Babak Sarani, Shahin Mohseni
{"title":"创伤性脊髓损伤手术患者虚弱评分的预测能力:TQIP分析。","authors":"Maximilian Peter Forssten, Lovisa Ekestubbe, Yang Cao, Ahmad Mohammad Ismail, Ioannis Ioannidis, Babak Sarani, Shahin Mohseni","doi":"10.1007/s00068-025-02775-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Frailty has gained recognition as a crucial determinant of patient outcomes following traumatic spinal injury (TSI), particularly due to its increasing incidence in elderly populations. The aim of the current investigation was therefore to compare the ability of several frailty scores to predict adverse outcomes in surgically managed isolated TSI patients without spinal cord injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All adult patients (18 years or older) who suffered an isolated TSI due to blunt trauma, and required surgical management, were extracted from the 2013-2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. The ability of the Orthopedic Frailty Score (OFS), the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), the 11-factor (11-mFI) and 5-factor (5-mFI) modified frailty index, as well as the Johns Hopkins Frailty Indicator to predict adverse outcomes was compared based on the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Subgroup analyses were also performed on patients who were ≥ 65 years old and those who were injured due to a ground-level fall (GLF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 39,449 patients were selected from the TQIP database. The 5-mFI and 11-mFI outperformed all other frailty scores when predicting in-hospital mortality (5-mFI AUC: 0.73) (11-mFI AUC: 0.73), any complication (5-mFI AUC: 0.65) (11-mFI AUC: 0.65), and FTR (5-mFI AUC: 0.75) (11-mFI AUC: 0.75). Among the 14,257 geriatric patients, however, the OFS demonstrated the highest predictive ability for in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.65). The OFS (AUC: 0.64) also performed on the same level as both the 5-mFI (AUC: 0.63) and the 11-mFI (AUC: 0.63) when predicting FTR in this population. Among the 9616 patients who were injured due to a GLF, the OFS performed on par with the 5-mFI and 11-mFI when predicting in-hospital mortality and FTR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Simpler scores like the 5-factor modified Frailty Index and Orthopedic Frailty Score outperform or perform on par with more complicated frailty scores when predicting mortality, complications, and failure-to-rescue in surgically managed isolated traumatic spinal injury patients without spinal cord injury, particularly among geriatric patients and those injured in a GLF.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":"51 1","pages":"126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11880054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive ability of frailty scores in surgically managed patients with traumatic spinal injuries: a TQIP analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Peter Forssten, Lovisa Ekestubbe, Yang Cao, Ahmad Mohammad Ismail, Ioannis Ioannidis, Babak Sarani, Shahin Mohseni\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00068-025-02775-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Frailty has gained recognition as a crucial determinant of patient outcomes following traumatic spinal injury (TSI), particularly due to its increasing incidence in elderly populations. The aim of the current investigation was therefore to compare the ability of several frailty scores to predict adverse outcomes in surgically managed isolated TSI patients without spinal cord injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All adult patients (18 years or older) who suffered an isolated TSI due to blunt trauma, and required surgical management, were extracted from the 2013-2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. The ability of the Orthopedic Frailty Score (OFS), the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), the 11-factor (11-mFI) and 5-factor (5-mFI) modified frailty index, as well as the Johns Hopkins Frailty Indicator to predict adverse outcomes was compared based on the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Subgroup analyses were also performed on patients who were ≥ 65 years old and those who were injured due to a ground-level fall (GLF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 39,449 patients were selected from the TQIP database. The 5-mFI and 11-mFI outperformed all other frailty scores when predicting in-hospital mortality (5-mFI AUC: 0.73) (11-mFI AUC: 0.73), any complication (5-mFI AUC: 0.65) (11-mFI AUC: 0.65), and FTR (5-mFI AUC: 0.75) (11-mFI AUC: 0.75). Among the 14,257 geriatric patients, however, the OFS demonstrated the highest predictive ability for in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.65). The OFS (AUC: 0.64) also performed on the same level as both the 5-mFI (AUC: 0.63) and the 11-mFI (AUC: 0.63) when predicting FTR in this population. Among the 9616 patients who were injured due to a GLF, the OFS performed on par with the 5-mFI and 11-mFI when predicting in-hospital mortality and FTR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Simpler scores like the 5-factor modified Frailty Index and Orthopedic Frailty Score outperform or perform on par with more complicated frailty scores when predicting mortality, complications, and failure-to-rescue in surgically managed isolated traumatic spinal injury patients without spinal cord injury, particularly among geriatric patients and those injured in a GLF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11880054/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-025-02775-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-025-02775-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:虚弱已经被认为是创伤性脊髓损伤(TSI)后患者预后的关键决定因素,特别是由于其在老年人中的发病率越来越高。因此,当前研究的目的是比较几种虚弱评分预测手术治疗的无脊髓损伤的孤立TSI患者不良结局的能力。方法:从2013-2021创伤质量改善计划数据库中提取所有因钝性创伤而遭受孤立性TSI并需要手术治疗的成年患者(18岁或以上)。比较骨科虚弱评分(OFS)、医院虚弱风险评分(HFRS)、11因子(11-mFI)和5因子(5-mFI)修正虚弱指数以及约翰霍普金斯虚弱指数预测不良后果的能力,基于接受者-操作特征曲线(AUC)下的面积。还对年龄≥65岁的患者和因地面坠落(GLF)受伤的患者进行了亚组分析。结果:从TQIP数据库中共筛选出39,449例患者。在预测院内死亡率(5-mFI AUC: 0.73) (11-mFI AUC: 0.73)、任何并发症(5-mFI AUC: 0.65) (11-mFI AUC: 0.65)和FTR (5-mFI AUC: 0.75) (11-mFI AUC: 0.75)时,5-mFI和11-mFI AUC优于所有其他虚弱评分。然而,在14257名老年患者中,OFS显示出最高的院内死亡率预测能力(AUC: 0.65)。在预测该人群的FTR时,OFS (AUC: 0.64)也与5-mFI (AUC: 0.63)和11-mFI (AUC: 0.63)处于同一水平。在9616例因GLF而受伤的患者中,OFS在预测院内死亡率和FTR方面与5-mFI和11-mFI表现相当。结论:在预测手术治疗的无脊髓损伤的孤立性创伤性脊髓损伤患者的死亡率、并发症和抢救失败时,简单的评分,如5因素修正的衰弱指数和骨科衰弱评分,优于或与更复杂的衰弱评分相当,特别是在老年患者和GLF中受伤的患者中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predictive ability of frailty scores in surgically managed patients with traumatic spinal injuries: a TQIP analysis.

Purpose: Frailty has gained recognition as a crucial determinant of patient outcomes following traumatic spinal injury (TSI), particularly due to its increasing incidence in elderly populations. The aim of the current investigation was therefore to compare the ability of several frailty scores to predict adverse outcomes in surgically managed isolated TSI patients without spinal cord injury.

Methods: All adult patients (18 years or older) who suffered an isolated TSI due to blunt trauma, and required surgical management, were extracted from the 2013-2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. The ability of the Orthopedic Frailty Score (OFS), the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), the 11-factor (11-mFI) and 5-factor (5-mFI) modified frailty index, as well as the Johns Hopkins Frailty Indicator to predict adverse outcomes was compared based on the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Subgroup analyses were also performed on patients who were ≥ 65 years old and those who were injured due to a ground-level fall (GLF).

Results: A total of 39,449 patients were selected from the TQIP database. The 5-mFI and 11-mFI outperformed all other frailty scores when predicting in-hospital mortality (5-mFI AUC: 0.73) (11-mFI AUC: 0.73), any complication (5-mFI AUC: 0.65) (11-mFI AUC: 0.65), and FTR (5-mFI AUC: 0.75) (11-mFI AUC: 0.75). Among the 14,257 geriatric patients, however, the OFS demonstrated the highest predictive ability for in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.65). The OFS (AUC: 0.64) also performed on the same level as both the 5-mFI (AUC: 0.63) and the 11-mFI (AUC: 0.63) when predicting FTR in this population. Among the 9616 patients who were injured due to a GLF, the OFS performed on par with the 5-mFI and 11-mFI when predicting in-hospital mortality and FTR.

Conclusion: Simpler scores like the 5-factor modified Frailty Index and Orthopedic Frailty Score outperform or perform on par with more complicated frailty scores when predicting mortality, complications, and failure-to-rescue in surgically managed isolated traumatic spinal injury patients without spinal cord injury, particularly among geriatric patients and those injured in a GLF.

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
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
311
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries. Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.
×
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