Literature DB >> 17674096

Accuracy of the surgeons' clinical prediction of perioperative complications using a visual analog scale.

John C Woodfield1, Ross A Pettigrew, Lindsay D Plank, Michael Landmann, Andre M van Rij.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ability to predict who will develop perioperative complications remains difficult because the etiology of adverse events is multifactorial. This study examines the preoperative and postoperative ability of the surgeon to predict complications and assesses the significance of a change in prediction.
METHODS: This was a prospective study of 1013 patients. The surgeon assessed the risk of a major complication on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) immediately before and after surgery. When the VAS score was changed, the surgeon was asked to document why. Patients were assessed up to 30 days postoperatively.
RESULTS: Surgeons made a meaningful preoperative prediction of major complications (median score = 27 mm vs. 19 mm, p < 0.01), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 for mortality, 0.67 for major complications, and 0.63 for all complications. A change in the VAS score postoperatively was due to technical reasons in 74% of stated cases. An increased VAS score identified significantly more complications, but the improvement in the discrimination was small. When included in a multivariate model for predicting postoperative complications, the surgeon's VAS score functioned as an independent predictive variable and improved the predictive ability, goodness of fit, and discrimination of the model.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment of risk by the surgeon using a VAS score independently improves the prediction of perioperative complications. Including the unique contribution of the surgeon's clinical assessment should be considered in models designed to predict the risk of surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17674096     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-007-9178-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.282


  25 in total

1.  APACHE 1978-2001: the development of a quality assurance system based on prognosis: milestones and personal reflections.

Authors:  William A Knaus
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2002-01

2.  Performance league tables: the NHS deserves better.

Authors:  Peymané Adab; Andrew M Rouse; Mohammed A Mohammed; Tom Marshall
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-01-12

3.  The volume-outcome relationship in cancer surgery: a hard sell.

Authors:  Ingemar Ihse
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Risk adjustment of the postoperative mortality rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study.

Authors:  S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; K Hur; J O Gibbs; G Barbour; J Demakis; G Irvin; J F Stremple; F Grover; G McDonald; E Passaro; P J Fabri; J Spencer; K Hammermeister; J B Aust
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Risk adjustment of the postoperative morbidity rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study.

Authors:  J Daley; S F Khuri; W Henderson; K Hur; J O Gibbs; G Barbour; J Demakis; G Irvin; J F Stremple; F Grover; G McDonald; E Passaro; P J Fabri; J Spencer; K Hammermeister; J B Aust; C Oprian
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Evaluating surgical risk: the importance of technical factors in determining outcome.

Authors:  R A Pettigrew; H J Burns; D C Carter
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system.

Authors:  W A Knaus; E A Draper; D P Wagner; J E Zimmerman
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Surgical technique.

Authors:  R C Russell
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  The Surgical Risk Scale as an improved tool for risk-adjusted analysis in comparative surgical audit.

Authors:  R Sutton; S Bann; M Brooks; S Sarin
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Factors determining survival after ruptured aortic aneurysm: the hospital, the surgeon, and the patient.

Authors:  K Ouriel; K Geary; R M Green; W Fiore; J E Geary; J A DeWeese
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 4.268

View more
  16 in total

1.  Opening the "black box" of surgeons' risk estimation: from intuition to quantitative modeling.

Authors:  Nick Sevdalis; Rosamond Jacklin
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  What is a surgical complication?

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Sociodemographics and comorbidities influence decisions to undergo pancreatic resection for neoplastic lesions.

Authors:  Charbel Sandroussi; Chantelle Brace; Erin D Kennedy; Nancy N Baxter; Steven Gallinger; Alice C Wei
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Surgeon perception is not a good predictor of peri-operative outcomes in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Joshua Stern; Saurabh Sharma; Pierre Mendoza; Mary Walicki; Rachel Hastings; Kelly Monahan; Baber Sheikh; Alexei Wedmid; David I Lee
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-07-08

5.  Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons.

Authors:  Karl Y Bilimoria; Yaoming Liu; Jennifer L Paruch; Lynn Zhou; Thomas E Kmiecik; Clifford Y Ko; Mark E Cohen
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Predicting morbidity of liver resection.

Authors:  Sudharsan Madhavan; Vishal G Shelat; Su-Lin Soong; Winston W L Woon; Terence Huey; Yiong H Chan; Sameer P Junnarkar
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 3.445

7.  Multiple preoperative and intraoperative factors predict early fistula thrombosis in the Hemodialysis Fistula Maturation Study.

Authors:  Alik Farber; Peter B Imrey; Thomas S Huber; James M Kaufman; Larry W Kraiss; Brett Larive; Liang Li; Harold I Feldman
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  A simple web-based risk calculator (www.anastomoticleak.com) is superior to the surgeon's estimate of anastomotic leak after colon cancer resection.

Authors:  T Sammour; M Lewis; M L Thomas; M J Lawrence; A Hunter; J W Moore
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.781

9.  Surgeon's intuition: is it enough to assess patients' surgical risk?

Authors:  Pierre-Alain Clavien; Daniel Dindo
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  Thoracic surgeons' perception of frail behavior in videos of standardized patients.

Authors:  Mark K Ferguson; Katherine Thompson; Megan Huisingh-Scheetz; Jeanne Farnan; Josh A Hemmerich; Kris Slawinski; Julissa Acevedo; Sang Mee Lee; Marko Rojnica; Stephen Small
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.