Identifying risk factors for poor multidimensional recovery after major surgery: A systematic review

Author:

Ou‐Young Jared12ORCID,Boggett Stuart12ORCID,El Ansary Doa13ORCID,Clarke‐Errey Sandy4ORCID,Royse Colin F.125ORCID,Bowyer Andrea J.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Surgery University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia

2. Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management The Royal Melbourne Hospital Parkville Victoria Australia

3. School of Health and Biomedical Science RMIT University Bundoora Victoria Australia

4. Statistical Consulting Centre University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia

5. Outcomes Research Consortium Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA

Abstract

AbstractTraditional risk factors used for predicting poor postoperative recovery have focused on postoperative complications, adverse symptoms (nausea, pain), length of hospital stay, and patient quality of life. Despite these being traditional performance indicators of patient postoperative “status,” they may not fully define the multidimensional nature of patient recovery. The definition of postoperative recovery is thus evolving to include patient‐reported outcomes that are important to the patient. Previous reviews have focused on risk factors for the above traditional outcomes after major surgery. Yet, there remains a need for further study of risk factors predicting multidimensional patient‐focused recovery, and investigation beyond the immediate postoperative period after patients are discharged from the hospital. This review aimed to appraise the current literature identifying risk factors for multidimensional patient recovery.MethodsA systematic review without meta‐analysis was performed to qualitatively summarize preoperative risk factors for multidimensional recovery 4–6 weeks after major surgery (PROSPERO, CRD42022321626). We reviewed three electronic databases between January 2012 and April 2022. The primary outcome was risk factors for multidimensional recovery at 4–6 weeks. A GRADE quality appraisal and a risk of bias assessment were completed.ResultsIn total, 5150 studies were identified, after which 1506 duplicates were removed. After the primary and secondary screening, nine articles were included in the final review. Interrater agreements between the two assessors for the primary and secondary screening process were 86% (k = 0.47) and 94% (k = 0.70), respectively. Factors associated with poor recovery were found to include ASA grade, recovery tool baseline score, physical function, number of co‐morbidities, previous surgery, and psychological well‐being. Mixed results were reported for age, BMI, and preoperative pain. Due to the observational nature, heterogeneity, multiple definitions of recovery, and moderate risk of bias of the primary studies, the quality of evidence was rated from very low to low.ConclusionOur review found that there were few studies assessing preoperative risk factors as predictors for poor postoperative multidimensional recovery. This confirms the need for higher quality studies assessing risk for poor recovery, ideally with a consistent and multi‐dimensional definition of recovery.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3