Cargando…

Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation

BACKGROUND: Using crude mortality and morbidity rates for comparing outcomes can be misleading. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcome of various surgical modalities without and with risk adjustment using Physiologic and Operative Severity Scoring for the enUmeration of Mortality an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mohil, Ravindra Singh, Singh, Tanveer, Arya, Satyavrat, Bhatnagar, Dinesh
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19025633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-2-31
_version_ 1782163225843859456
author Mohil, Ravindra Singh
Singh, Tanveer
Arya, Satyavrat
Bhatnagar, Dinesh
author_facet Mohil, Ravindra Singh
Singh, Tanveer
Arya, Satyavrat
Bhatnagar, Dinesh
author_sort Mohil, Ravindra Singh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Using crude mortality and morbidity rates for comparing outcomes can be misleading. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcome of various surgical modalities without and with risk adjustment using Physiologic and Operative Severity Scoring for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) score in cases of ileal perforations. METHODS: Prospective study on 125 patients of ileal perforations. Resection anastamosis (Group I) was done in 38 patients, primary repair (Group II) in 42 patients and 45 patients had an ileostomy (Group III). The disease severity was assessed in all patients using POSSUM score. The odds of death without and with risk adjustment using POSSUM mortality score were calculated for all groups RESULTS: Seventeen patients (14%) patients died and 99 (79%) developed postoperative complications. Using crude mortality rates Group I appeared to be the best treatment option with only 2 (5%) deaths followed by Group II with 5 (12%) deaths where as Group III had the worst outcome with 10 deaths (22%). However, Group III (ileostomy) patients had higher mean POSSUM mortality and morbidity score (55.55%, 91.33%) than Group I (28%, 75.26%) and Group II (27%, 73.59%). Taking Group I as the reference (odds ratio, OR1) odds of death were greatest in Group III (OR 5.14, p = 0.043) followed by Group II (OR 2.43, p = 0.306). With risk adjustment using POSSUM mortality score the odds of death decreased in Group III (OR 1.16 p = 0.875). For the whole group, there was a significant association between the POSSUM score and postoperative complications and deaths. Mean POSSUM mortality and morbidity score of those who died (63.40 vs.33.68, p = 0.001) and developed complications (66.32 vs.84.20, p = 0.001) was significantly higher. For every percent increase in severity score the risk of postoperative complications and death increased by 1.10 (p = 0.001) and1.06 (p = 0.001) respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite ileostomy patients having highest crude mortality and complication rates, after risk adjustment it was equally safe. Severity of the disease rather than the surgical option had a significant impact on the outcome in patients with ileal perforations.
format Text
id pubmed-2614410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26144102009-01-07 Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation Mohil, Ravindra Singh Singh, Tanveer Arya, Satyavrat Bhatnagar, Dinesh Patient Saf Surg Research BACKGROUND: Using crude mortality and morbidity rates for comparing outcomes can be misleading. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcome of various surgical modalities without and with risk adjustment using Physiologic and Operative Severity Scoring for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) score in cases of ileal perforations. METHODS: Prospective study on 125 patients of ileal perforations. Resection anastamosis (Group I) was done in 38 patients, primary repair (Group II) in 42 patients and 45 patients had an ileostomy (Group III). The disease severity was assessed in all patients using POSSUM score. The odds of death without and with risk adjustment using POSSUM mortality score were calculated for all groups RESULTS: Seventeen patients (14%) patients died and 99 (79%) developed postoperative complications. Using crude mortality rates Group I appeared to be the best treatment option with only 2 (5%) deaths followed by Group II with 5 (12%) deaths where as Group III had the worst outcome with 10 deaths (22%). However, Group III (ileostomy) patients had higher mean POSSUM mortality and morbidity score (55.55%, 91.33%) than Group I (28%, 75.26%) and Group II (27%, 73.59%). Taking Group I as the reference (odds ratio, OR1) odds of death were greatest in Group III (OR 5.14, p = 0.043) followed by Group II (OR 2.43, p = 0.306). With risk adjustment using POSSUM mortality score the odds of death decreased in Group III (OR 1.16 p = 0.875). For the whole group, there was a significant association between the POSSUM score and postoperative complications and deaths. Mean POSSUM mortality and morbidity score of those who died (63.40 vs.33.68, p = 0.001) and developed complications (66.32 vs.84.20, p = 0.001) was significantly higher. For every percent increase in severity score the risk of postoperative complications and death increased by 1.10 (p = 0.001) and1.06 (p = 0.001) respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite ileostomy patients having highest crude mortality and complication rates, after risk adjustment it was equally safe. Severity of the disease rather than the surgical option had a significant impact on the outcome in patients with ileal perforations. BioMed Central 2008-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC2614410/ /pubmed/19025633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-2-31 Text en Copyright © 2008 Mohil et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Mohil, Ravindra Singh
Singh, Tanveer
Arya, Satyavrat
Bhatnagar, Dinesh
Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation
title Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation
title_full Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation
title_fullStr Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation
title_full_unstemmed Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation
title_short Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation
title_sort risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19025633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-2-31
work_keys_str_mv AT mohilravindrasingh riskadjustmentiscrucialincomparingoutcomesofvarioussurgicalmodalitiesinpatientswithilealperforation
AT singhtanveer riskadjustmentiscrucialincomparingoutcomesofvarioussurgicalmodalitiesinpatientswithilealperforation
AT aryasatyavrat riskadjustmentiscrucialincomparingoutcomesofvarioussurgicalmodalitiesinpatientswithilealperforation
AT bhatnagardinesh riskadjustmentiscrucialincomparingoutcomesofvarioussurgicalmodalitiesinpatientswithilealperforation