| Literature DB >> 33785033 |
Kensuke Shinonara1, Ryo Ugawa2, Shinya Arataki2, Shinnosuke Nakahara2, Kazuhiro Takeuchi2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In several previous studies, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score was associated with postoperative complications, mortality, and re-admission. There are few reports about the influence of CCI score on postoperative clinical outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of comorbidities as calculated with CCI on postoperative clinical outcomes after PLIF.Entities:
Keywords: Charlson comorbidity index; Clinical outcome; Complication; Direct cost; Improvement rate; Length of stay; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Year: 2021 PMID: 33785033 PMCID: PMC8008557 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02377-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Patient number and the incidence of each comorbidity in this study
| All patients = 366 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comorbidity | Patient number | Incident rate (%) |
| 1 point | ||
| Myocardial infarction | 50 | 13.6 |
| Congestive heart failure | 55 | 15 |
| Peripheral vascular disease | 18 | 4.9 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 30 | 8.1 |
| Dementia | 6 | 1.6 |
| Chronic pulmonary disease | 31 | 8.4 |
| Connective tissue disease | 11 | 3 |
| Ulcer disease | 31 | 8.4 |
| Mild liver disease | 24 | 6.5 |
| Diabetes | 79 | 21.5 |
| 2 points | ||
| Hemiplegia | 5 | 1.3 |
| Moderate or severe renal disease | 25 | 6.8 |
| Diabetes with end organ damage | 4 | 1 |
| Any tumor | 33 | 9 |
| Leukemia | 2 | 0.5 |
| Lymphoma | 4 | 1 |
| 3 points | ||
| Moderate or severe liver disease | 0 | 0 |
| 6 points | ||
| Metastatic solid tumor | 2 | 0.5 |
| AIDS | 0 | 0 |
AIDS acquired immune deficiency syndrome
Fig. 1Increasing CCI score negatively correlated with JOA improvement rate. JOA; Japanese Orthopaedic Association, CCI; Charlson comorbidity index
The correlation coefficient between CCI score and each item
| Correlation coefficient with CCI | |
|---|---|
| Operative time | − 0.01 |
| Intraoperative blood loss | − 0.0007 |
| Length of stay | 0.18 |
| Direct cost | 0.16 |
Fig. 2There was no significant difference between group 0 and group 1. There was a significant difference between group 0 and group 2+. A significant difference was also seen between group 1 and group 2+. P values less than 0.05 were defined as significant
Length of stay and direct cost between the three groups
| Length of stay (day) | Direct cost (US dollar) | |
| Group 0 | 20.3 | 20637.6 |
| Group 1 | 20.9 | 21049.3 |
| Group 2+ | 22.3 | 21899.3 |
| Group 0–group 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Group 0–group 2+ | 0.009 | 0.03 |
| Group 1–group 2+ | 0.05 | 0.3 |