Dependent functional status is an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality and morbidities following colectomy for volvulus: An ACS-NSQIP study from the United States

OBJECTIVES

Colonic volvulus is a common cause of bowel obstructions and surgery is the definitive treatment. Functional status is often associated with adverse postoperative outcomes but its effect on colectomy for volvulus remained under-explored. This study sought to analyze the effect of functional status on the 30-day outcomes of colectomy for volvulus.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted colectomy database from 2012 to 2022 was utilized. Only patients with volvulus as the primary indication for colectomy were included. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were compared between patients with dependent functional status (DFS) and independent functional status (IFS), adjusted for demographics, baseline characteristics, preoperative preparation, indication for surgery, and operative approaches by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 1,476 patients with DFS (945 partially DFS and 531 fully DFS) and 8,824 (85.67 %) IFS patients who underwent colectomy for volvulus. After multivariable analysis, DFS patients had higher risks of mortality (aOR=1.671, 95 CI=1.37-2.038, p < 0.01), pulmonary complications (aOR=2.166, 95 CI=1.85-2.536, p < 0.01), sepsis (aOR=1.31, 95 CI=1.107-1.551, p < 0.01), prolonged postoperative nothing by mouth (NPO) or nasogastric tube (NGT) use (aOR=1.436, 95 CI=1.269-1.626, p < 0.01), discharge not to home (aOR=3.774, 95 CI=3.23-4.411, p < 0.01), and 30-day readmission (aOR=1.196, 95 CI=1.007-1.42, p = 0.04). Moreover, DFS patients had a longer length of stay (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

DFS was identified as an independent risk factor for increased mortality and complications after colectomy for volvulus. Given the substantial overlap between DFS patients and those who have colonic volvulus, these insights can contribute to preoperative risk assessments and postoperative care in these patients.

Prospective evaluation and comparison of the predictive ability of different frailty scores to predict outcomes in geriatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Different frailty scores have been proposed to measure frailty. No study has compared their predictive ability to predict outcomes in trauma patients. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive ability of different frailty scores to predict complications, mortality, discharge disposition, and 30-day readmission in trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a 2-year (2016-2017) prospective cohort analysis of all geriatric (age, >65 years) trauma patients. We calculated the following frailty scores on each patient; the Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (TSFI), the Modified Frailty Index (mFI) derived from the Canada Study of Health and Aging, the Rockwood Frailty Score (RFS), and the International Association of Nutrition and Aging 5-item a frailty scale (FS). Predictive models, using both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions, were created for each outcome. The unadjusted c-statistic was used to compare the predictive ability of each model.

RESULTS

A total of 341 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 76 ± 9 years, median Injury Severity Score was 13 [9-18], and median Glasgow Coma Scale score was 15 [12-15]. The unadjusted models indicated that both the TSFI and the RFS had comparable predictive value, as indicated by their unadjusted c-statistics, for mortality, in-hospital complications, skilled nursing facility disposition and 30-day readmission. Both TSFI and RFS models had unadjusted c-statistics indicating a relatively strong predictive ability for all outcomes. The unadjusted mFI and FS models did not have a strong predictive ability for predicting mortality and in-hospital complications. They also had a lower predictive ability for skilled nursing facility disposition and 30-day readmissions.

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in the predictive ability of the four commonly used frailty scores. The TSFI and the RFS are better predictors of outcomes compared with the mFI and the FS. The TSFI is easy to calculate and might be used as a universal frailty score in geriatric trauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic, level III.