Literature DB >> 28377835

Basic Features and Clinical Applicability of 'Preliminary Universal Surgical Invasiveness Score' (pUSIS): A Multi-Centre Pilot Study.

Peter Biro1, Luc Sermeus2, Radmilo Jankovic3, Nenad Savić3, Adela Hilda Onuţu4, Daniela Ionescu5, Daniela Godoroja6, Gabriel Gurman7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is still a lack of a universally applicable and comprehensive scoring system for documenting the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The proposed preliminary 'Universal Surgical Invasiveness Score' (pUSIS) is intended to fill this gap.
METHODS: We used the recently developed pUSIS to obtain values from 8 types of surgery and 80 individual interventions. The results were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. The degree of difficulty on a scale from 0 (very easy) to 10 (extremely difficult) and time expenditures for assessing pUSIS were documented.
RESULTS: Individual pUSIS values ranged from 8 in a laparoscopic cholecystectomy case to 36 in a total hip replacement case. The lowest median pUSIS value of 11.5 was found for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the highest value of 24.5 was found for open thoracic surgery. The correlation between pUSIS values and the duration of surgery resulted in a tight linear regression (R2=0.6419). The lowest mean (±SD) difficulty level to obtain pUSIS values was 1.6±0.6 for sleeve gastrectomy and the highest one was 2.9±0.6 for knee replacement. The duration to finalise the calculations was 4.1±1.1 min for video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) and 9.4±1.3 min for sleeve gastrectomy.
CONCLUSION: We concluded that pUSIS has the potential to be a useful, simply obtainable and universal assessment tool for quantification of the magnitude and invasiveness of individual surgical operations and can serve as a means to quantify surgical interventions for outcome research and evaluate surgical performance.

Keywords:  Surgical invasiveness; outcome; score; surgical risk

Year:  2017        PMID: 28377835      PMCID: PMC5367732          DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2017.77785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim        ISSN: 2149-276X


  13 in total

Review 1.  Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement.

Authors:  Charles Vincent; Krishna Moorthy; Sudip K Sarker; Avril Chang; Ara W Darzi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Development of an index to characterize the "invasiveness" of spine surgery: validation by comparison to blood loss and operative time.

Authors:  Sohail K Mirza; Richard A Deyo; Patrick J Heagerty; Mark A Konodi; Lorri A Lee; Judith A Turner; Robert Goodkin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Surgical stress index as a measure of nociception/antinociception balance during general anesthesia.

Authors:  J Wennervirta; M Hynynen; A-M Koivusalo; K Uutela; M Huiku; A Vakkuri
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.105

4.  Proposal for a surrogate surgical invasiveness score to obtain a 'post hoc' quantification of surgical stress and tissue trauma in the context of postoperative outcome assessments.

Authors:  P Biro; G Gurman
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Surgical stress index reflects surgical stress in gynaecological laparoscopic day-case surgery.

Authors:  J Ahonen; R Jokela; K Uutela; M Huiku
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2007-03-09       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  The surgeon's 'gut feeling' as a predictor of post-operative outcome.

Authors:  M N Hartley; P M Sagar
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 1.891

7.  Does the Surgical Apgar Score measure intraoperative performance?

Authors:  Scott E Regenbogen; R Todd Lancaster; Stuart R Lipsitz; Caprice C Greenberg; Matthew M Hutter; Atul A Gawande
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Utility of the surgical apgar score: validation in 4119 patients.

Authors:  Scott E Regenbogen; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Stuart R Lipsitz; Caprice C Greenberg; Matthew M Hutter; Atul A Gawande
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2009-01

9.  Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation.

Authors:  Sohail K Mirza; Richard A Deyo; Patrick J Heagerty; Judith A Turner; Lorri A Lee; Robert Goodkin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT).

Authors:  K L Protopapa; J C Simpson; N C E Smith; S R Moonesinghe
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 6.939

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.