SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 5

Use of a modified surgical APGAR score for prediction of postoperative complications in emergency surgery: An observational retrospective study

Acil cerrahide ameliyat sonrası komplikasyonların öngörülmesinde modifiye cerrahi APGAR skorunun kullanımı: Gözlemsel geriye dönük çalışma

Mehmet Nuri YAKAR
Cengiz POLAT
Müslüm AKKILIÇ
Kadir YEŞİLDAL
Nagihan DURAN YAKAR
Namigar TURGUT
Pages
615–625
Publication Date
2022-11-07
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The compliance levels of the SAS and mSAS were 98.4% and they have been found as statistically significant (ICC: 0.984; p=0.001; p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: The surgical Apgar score (SAS) was defined by Gawande et al. in 2007.
📊
Key Findings & Data:At the end of the operation, the SAS was calculated from the data obtained from the examination of the patients and the mSAS was calculated by adding the duration of the operation to data used in the calculation of the SAS (Surgical duration >8 h; –4 points; 7.01–8 h; –3 points; 5.01–7 h; –2 points; 3.01–5 h; –1 points; 0–3 h; 0 points added).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The compliance levels of the SAS and mSAS were 98.4% and they have been found as statistically significant (ICC: 0.984; p=0.001; p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The surgical Apgar score (SAS) was defined by Gawande et al. in 2007. It has been shown that this scoring system was highly effective for predicting the incidence of post-operative complications and mortality. In this study, we aimed to define a new, modified SAS (mSAS) for predicting the incidence of post-operative complications and mortality in emergency surgery. We also wanted to quantify the effectiveness of this modified scoring system, comprising of the duration of the operation in addition to the three intraoperative parameters of the SAS score. METHODS: Five hundred and seventy-nine patients who underwent emergency surgery were enrolled in this retrospective observational study. At the end of the operation, the SAS was calculated from the data obtained from the examination of the patients and the mSAS was calculated by adding the duration of the operation to data used in the calculation of the SAS (Surgical duration >8 h; –4 points; 7.01–8 h; –3 points; 5.01–7 h; –2 points; 3.01–5 h; –1 points; 0–3 h; 0 points added). RESULTS: There was a statistically significant relationship between the mSAS and the total number of complications (as operative time [OT] increased, the number of complications increased) (r=0.360; p=0.001). The compliance levels of the SAS and mSAS were 98.4% and they have been found as statistically significant (ICC: 0.984; p=0.001; p

Özet

AMAÇ: Gawande ve ark.nın 2007 yılında tanımladığı Cerrahi Apgar (SAS), skorlama sisteminin ameliyat sonrası komplikasyon insidansını ve mortaliteyi tahmin etmede oldukça etkili olduğu gösterilmiştir. Bu çalışmada, acil cerrahide ameliyat sonrası komplikasyon insidansını ve mortaliteyi tahmin etmek için yeni, modifiye edilmiş bir SAS tanımlamayı amaçladık. Ayrıca, SAS skorunun üç intraoperatif parametresine ek olarak operasyonun süresinden oluşan bu modifiye edilmiş skorlama sisteminin etkinliğini de ölçmek istedik. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Bu geriye dönük gözlemsel çalışmaya acil cerrahi uygulanan 579 hasta dahil edildi. Operasyon sonunda hastaların muayenesinden elde edilen verilerden SAS hesaplandı ve SAS hesaplamasında kullanılan verilere operasyon süresi eklenerek modifiye SAS (mSAS) hesaplandı (Cerrahi süre >8 sa; -4 puan; 7.01–8 sa; -3 puan; 5.01–7 sa; -2 puan; 3.01–5 sa; -1 puan; 0–3 sa; 0 puan eklendi). BULGULAR: mSAS ile toplam komplikasyon sayısı arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki vardı (ameliyat süresi arttıkça komplikasyon sayısı arttı) (r=0.360; p=0.001). SAS ve mSAS’ın uyum düzeyleri %98.4 idi ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu (ICC: 0.984; p=0.001; p

🔖

Cite This Article

YAKAR, M. N., POLAT, C., AKKILIÇ, M., YEŞİLDAL, K., YAKAR, N. D., TURGUT, N. (2022). Use of a modified surgical APGAR score for prediction of postoperative complications in emergency surgery: An observational retrospective study. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 5, 615–625. https://ajindex.com/articles/655446

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: From concept to measurement. Ann Surg 2004;239:475–82
  2. Kinoshita M, Morioka N, Yabuuchi M, Ozaki M. New surgical scoring system to predict postoperative mortality. J Anesth 2017;31:198–205
  3. Barnett S, Moonesinghe SR. Clinical risk scores to guide perioperative management. Postgrad Med J 2011;87:535–41
  4. Wolters U, Wolf T, Stützer H, Schröder T, Pichlmaier H. Risk factors, complications, and outcome in surgery: A multivariate analysis. Eur J Surg 1997;163:563–8
  5. Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson MG, Richart T. ASA physical status classification is not a good predictor of infection for total knee replacement and is influenced by the presence of comorbidities. Acta Orthop Belg 2008;74:360–4
  6. Campillo-Soto A, Flores-Pastor B, Soria-Aledo V, Candel-Arenas M, Andrés-García B, Martín-Lorenzo JG, et al. The POSSUM scoring system: an instrument for measuring quality in surgical patients. Cir Esp 2006;80:395–9
  7. Schroeder RA, Marroquin CE, Bute BP, Khuri S, Henderson WG, Kuo PC. Predictive indices of morbidity and mortality after liver resection. Ann Surg 2006;243:373–9
  8. Ouellette JR, Small DG, Termuhlen PM. Evaluation of Charlson-age comorbidity index as predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:1061–7
  9. Ghali WA, Hall RE, Rosen AK, Ash AS, Moskowitz MA. Searching for an improved clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:273–8
  10. Tao LS, Mackenzie CR, Charlson ME. Predictors of postoperative complications in the patient with diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Complications 2008;22:24–8
  11. Wang CY, Lin YS, Tzao C, Lee HC, Huang MH, Hsu WH, et al. Comparison of Charlson comorbidity index and Kaplan-Feinstein index in patients with stage I lung cancer after surgical resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;32:877–81
  12. Froehner M, Koch R, Litz R, Heller A, Oehlschlaeger S, Wirth MP. Comparison of the American society of anesthesiologists physical status classification with the charlson score as predictors of survival after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003;62:698–701
  13. Gawande AA, Kwan MR, Regenbogen SE. An apgar score or surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:201–8
  14. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg 1953;32:260e7
  15. Regenbogen SE, Ehrenfeld JM, Lipsitz SR, Gr