Nag Deb Sanjay
Department of Anaesthesiology & Critical Care, Tata Main Hospital, 831001, Jamshedpur, India.
Biomedicine (Taipei). 2015 Dec;5(4):20. doi: 10.7603/s40681-015-0020-y. Epub 2015 Nov 28.
Emergency laparotomy is the commonest emergency surgical procedure in most hospitals and includes over 400 diverse surgical procedures. Despite the evolution of medicine and surgical practices, the mortality in patients needing emergency laparotomy remains abnormally high. Although surgical risk assessment first started with the ASA Physical Status score in 1941, efforts to find an ideal scoring system that accurately estimates the risk of mortality, continues till today. While many scoring systems have been developed, no single scoring system has been validated across multiple centers and geographical locations. While some scoring systems can predict the risk merely based upon preoperative findings and parameters, some rely on intra-operative assessment and histopathology reports to accurately stratify the risk of mortality. Although most scoring systems can potentially be used to compare risk-adjusted mortality across hospitals and amongst surgeons, only those which are based on preoperative findings can be used for risk prognostication and identify high-risk patients before surgery for an aggressive treatment. The recognition of the fact, that in the absence of outcome data in these patients, it would be impossible to evaluate the impact of quality improvement initiatives on risk-adjusted mortality, hospital groups and surgical societies have got together and started to pool data and analyze it. Appropriate scoring systems for emergency laparotomies would help in risk prognostication, risk-adjusted audit and assess the impact of quality improvement initiative in patient care across hospitals. Large multi-centric studies across varied geographic locations and surgical practices need to assess and validate the ideal and most apt scoring system for emergency laparotomies. While APACHE-II and P-POSSUM continue to be the most commonly used scoring system in emergency laparotomies,studies need to compare them in their ability to predict mortality and explore if either has a higher sensitivity and specificity than the other.
急诊剖腹术是大多数医院最常见的急诊外科手术,包括400多种不同的外科手术。尽管医学和外科实践不断发展,但需要急诊剖腹术的患者死亡率仍然异常高。虽然手术风险评估最初始于1941年的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况评分,但寻找准确估计死亡风险的理想评分系统的努力一直持续到今天。虽然已经开发了许多评分系统,但没有一个评分系统在多个中心和地理位置得到验证。一些评分系统仅根据术前检查结果和参数就能预测风险,而一些则依赖术中评估和组织病理学报告来准确分层死亡风险。尽管大多数评分系统都可用于比较不同医院和外科医生之间经风险调整后的死亡率,但只有基于术前检查结果的评分系统才能用于风险预测,并在手术前识别高危患者以便进行积极治疗。由于认识到在这些患者缺乏预后数据的情况下,无法评估质量改进措施对经风险调整后的死亡率的影响,医院集团和外科学会已经联合起来,开始汇总数据并进行分析。适用于急诊剖腹术的评分系统将有助于风险预测、经风险调整后的审计,并评估质量改进措施对各医院患者护理的影响。需要在不同地理位置和外科实践中开展大型多中心研究,以评估和验证适用于急诊剖腹术的理想且最合适的评分系统。虽然急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHE-II)和 Portsmouth 改良手术预后和生存估计模型(P-POSSUM)仍然是急诊剖腹术中最常用的评分系统,但研究需要比较它们预测死亡率的能力,并探讨其中是否有一个比另一个具有更高的敏感性和特异性。