Yu-San Tee1, Chi-Tung Cheng1, Yu-Tung Wu1, Chih-Po Hsu1, Shih-Ching Kang1, Chi-Hsun Hsieh2, Brian A Derstine3,4, Grace L Su4,5,6, Stewart C Wang3,4, Chih-Yuan Fu1, Chien-Hung Liao1. 1. Division of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, ROC. 2. Division of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, ROC. hsieh0818@cgmh.org.tw. 3. Division of Acute Care Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Morphomic Analysis Group, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty has been shown to be an independent negative predictor of surgical outcomes in geriatric patients. Traditional measurements of muscle strength and mass are impractical in emergency settings, and computed tomography (CT)-measured skeletal muscle mass has been proposed as an alternative. However, the cutoff values for low muscle mass are still unknown, and their impact on abdominal emergencies in the elderly population is unclear. METHODS: A total of 462 young trauma patients aged 18-40 years were analyzed to establish sex-specific reference cutoff values for the CT-measured muscle index (MI) and muscle gauge (MG) values. The impacts of low MI and MG values were investigated in 1192 elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) undergoing abdominal surgery. RESULTS: The sex-specific cutoff values for MI and MG were determined by adopting European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 guidelines. The correlation between MG and aging was significantly stronger than that between MI and ageing. With regard to the MG, the L4 psoas muscle gauge (L4 PMG) was further investigated in an elderly cohort owing to its high predictive value and ease of use in the clinical setting. A low L4 PMG value was an independent risk factor for overall complications and mortality in elderly patients with abdominal emergencies. CONCLUSION: The current study was the largest study investigating the correlations between MG values and aging in the Asian population. A low L4 PMG value may help surgeons during preoperative decision making regarding geriatric patients with abdominal emergencies.
BACKGROUND: Frailty has been shown to be an independent negative predictor of surgical outcomes in geriatric patients. Traditional measurements of muscle strength and mass are impractical in emergency settings, and computed tomography (CT)-measured skeletal muscle mass has been proposed as an alternative. However, the cutoff values for low muscle mass are still unknown, and their impact on abdominal emergencies in the elderly population is unclear. METHODS: A total of 462 young traumapatients aged 18-40 years were analyzed to establish sex-specific reference cutoff values for the CT-measured muscle index (MI) and muscle gauge (MG) values. The impacts of low MI and MG values were investigated in 1192 elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) undergoing abdominal surgery. RESULTS: The sex-specific cutoff values for MI and MG were determined by adopting European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 guidelines. The correlation between MG and aging was significantly stronger than that between MI and ageing. With regard to the MG, the L4 psoas muscle gauge (L4 PMG) was further investigated in an elderly cohort owing to its high predictive value and ease of use in the clinical setting. A low L4 PMG value was an independent risk factor for overall complications and mortality in elderly patients with abdominal emergencies. CONCLUSION: The current study was the largest study investigating the correlations between MG values and aging in the Asian population. A low L4 PMG value may help surgeons during preoperative decision making regarding geriatric patients with abdominal emergencies.
Authors: Robert D Boutin; Sara Bamrungchart; Cyrus P Bateni; Daniel P Beavers; Kristen M Beavers; John P Meehan; Leon Lenchik Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Yibo Li; Jenelle L Pederson; Thomas A Churchill; Adrian S Wagg; Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan; Raj S Padwal; Rachel G Khadaroo Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Mohammed H Al-Temimi; Matthew Griffee; Toby M Enniss; Robert Preston; Daniel Vargo; Sean Overton; Edward Kimball; Richard Barton; Raminder Nirula Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Martin A Makary; Dorry L Segev; Peter J Pronovost; Dora Syin; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Purvi Patel; Ryan Takenaga; Lara Devgan; Christine G Holzmueller; Jing Tian; Linda P Fried Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Wijnanda J Frenkel; Erika J Jongerius; Miranda J Mandjes-van Uitert; Barbara C van Munster; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Brian J Buta; Jeremy D Walston; Job G Godino; Minsun Park; Rita R Kalyani; Qian-Li Xue; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Ravi Varadhan Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Michael J Englesbe; Jay S Lee; Kevin He; Ludi Fan; Douglas E Schaubel; Kyle H Sheetz; Calista M Harbaugh; Sven A Holcombe; Darrel A Campbell; Christopher J Sonnenday; Stewart C Wang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Wilhelmus G P M Looijaard; Ingeborg M Dekker; Sandra N Stapel; Armand R J Girbes; Jos W R Twisk; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten; Peter J M Weijs Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 9.097