Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
AI Discovery Assistant

Abstract

Background

Major emergency abdominal surgery is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Given the ageing and increasingly frail population, understanding the impact of frailty on complication patterns after surgery is crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between clinical frailty and organ-specific postoperative complications after major emergency abdominal surgery.

Methods

A prospective cohort study including all patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Denmark, from 1 October 2020 to 1 August 2022, was performed. Clinical frailty scale scores were determined for all patients upon admission and patients were then analysed according to clinical frailty scale groups (scores of 1–3, 4–6, or 7–9). Postoperative complications were registered until discharge.

Results

A total of 520 patients were identified. Patients with a low clinical frailty scale score (1–3) experienced fewer total complications (120 complications per 100 patients) compared with patients with clinical frailty scale scores of 4–6 (250 complications per 100 patients) and 7–9 (277 complications per 100 patients) (P < 0.001). A high clinical frailty scale score was associated with a high risk of pneumonia (P = 0.009), delirium (P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.020), and infectious complications in general (P < 0.001). Patients with severe frailty (clinical frailty scale score of 7–9) suffered from more surgical complications (P = 0.001) compared with the rest of the cohort. Severe frailty was associated with a high risk of 30-day mortality (33% for patients with a clinical frailty scale score of 7–9 versus 3.6% for patients with a clinical frailty scale score of 1–3, P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, an increasing degree of clinical frailty was found to be significantly associated with developing at least one complication.

Conclusion

Patients with frailty have a significantly increased risk of postoperative complications after major emergency abdominal surgery, especially atrial fibrillation, delirium, and pneumonia. Likewise, patients with frailty have an increased risk of mortality within 90 days. Thus, frailty is a significant predictor for adverse events after major emergency abdominal surgery and should be considered in all patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery.

Introduction

Major emergency abdominal surgery (MEAS) is a surgical procedure that is performed urgently to address potential life-threatening intra-abdominal conditions, such as small or large bowel obstruction, perforated peptic ulcer, bowel perforation, intestinal ischaemia, anastomotic leakage, and severe intra-abdominal bleeding. These conditions pose a significant challenge due to the high risk of morbidity and both short- and long-term mortality1–4. Furthermore, with the global population increasing and life expectancy rising, an increasing number of elderly and frail patients are undergoing MEAS5.

Frailty is a complex state that arises from age- and disease-related deficiencies, resulting in decreased physical capacity and heightened vulnerability to internal and external stressors6. Sarcopenia significantly predicts clinical frailty7–9. The concept of frailty lends itself to evaluation through diverse scoring systems, including the clinical frailty scale (CFS)9. Increased frailty has been linked to an increased risk of short-term mortality and an increased risk of postoperative complications as a whole10–12. In elective surgery, frailty has been associated with an elevated risk of postoperative complications, prolonged hospital stay, long-term mortality, and ICU admission13–18. In the context of MEAS, the current literature on the topic remains scarce19,20, with the few existing studies focusing on the association between frailty and short-term mortality21–23.

The authors hypothesized that frailty would associate with an organ-specific pattern of complications regarding surgical and non-surgical complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in-hospital complications encountered by patients undergoing MEAS and their potential association with frailty.

Methods

Study design and setting

A prospective cohort study was conducted, including patients undergoing MEAS between 1 October 2020 and 1 August 2022 at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Denmark. Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev has an emergency facility serving approximately 450 000 individuals. The department has adopted a perioperative care bundle that covers all aspects for patients with severe intra-abdominal conditions who require MEAS. This framework, known in Denmark as Acute High-risk Abdominal surgery (AHA)24, consists, before surgery, of a standardized protocol that features rapid clinical assessment, acute CT scan within 2 h, intravenous antibiotics upon suspicion of an AHA diagnosis, nasogastric tube insertion, initial fluid therapy, epidural anaesthesia unless contraindicated, and expedited surgical intervention when warranted25. Intraoperatively, the department has specific instructions, depending on the indication and physiological condition26, and, after surgery, patients are triaged to a high-dependency unit, with subsequent admission to a dedicated AHA ward that is covered exclusively by consultant emergency surgeons, with standardized protocols for observation, pain management, mobilization, nutrition, and discharge27.

Clinical frailty was identified in the included cohort before surgery by assessing baseline functional level using the CFS9. The CFS was selected as the preferred measure of frailty due to its suitability for clinical application and relevance in assessing patients’ overall health and functional status. The CFS is a numerical assessment tool that quantifies an individual’s baseline available capacity on a scale ranging from 1 to 9. This scale categorizes individuals into three distinct groups: scores of 1–3 indicate no frailty; scores of 4–6 indicate mild to moderate frailty; and scores of 7–9 indicate severe frailty, including patients who most likely will not survive only minor disease (CFS 8) and terminally ill patients with an expected life expectancy of less than 6 months (CFS 9). Thus, frailty, in this study, was defined as a CFS score of 4–9, with subgroups of mild to moderate frailty and severe frailty, as mentioned above.

Inclusion and exclusion

All patients 18 years or older were enrolled in the perioperative care bundle (AHA). Patients who underwent a primary operation or reoperation (for example reoperation after non-MEAS surgery) were included. Patients who did not enrol in the perioperative care bundle (AHA) immediately and did not undergo urgent surgery (defined as within 12 h) were excluded from this analysis.

Data management

Study data were collected and managed using research electronic data capture (REDCap) tools hosted at the Department of Gastrointestinal and Hepatic Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital—Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark. REDCap is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies, providing: an intuitive interface for validated data capture; audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures; automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages; and procedures for data integration and interoperability with external sources28,29.

Several clinical variables were included in the data collection, such as baseline data (age, sex, BMI, and ASA grade), preoperative and intraoperative details (such as medication use, previous abdominal surgery, duration between clinical assessment and CT scan, and perioperative findings and strategies), postoperative complications (defined by organ-specific location), and risk scores (such as the CFS score). The study was approved by the Capital Region of Demark (P-2020-1166, R-21038079) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2021-431), did not require ethics approval, in accordance with Danish law, and was conducted and reported in accordance with the STROBE checklist30.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the organ-specific pattern of postoperative complications (classified into surgical and non-surgical) after MEAS, stratified by CFS score, and the secondary outcome was short-term mortality after MEAS, stratified by CFS score.

Statistical analysis

All statistical tests were two-sided and P < 0.050 was considered statistically significant. The P values were computed between two groups: the CFS 1–3 group and the CFS 4–6 group. The objective was to discern the dissimilarities between non-frail individuals and those exhibiting mild to moderate frailty, under the hypothesis that any significant variance observed between CFS 1–3 and CFS 4–6 would potentially indicate detectable differences when compared with the more severe frailty category, CFS 7–9.

Survival analysis was conducted using survival curves and mortality rates to assess the impact of frailty on intrahospital mortality. The log rank test was employed to compare survival curves between the frail and non-frail patient groups. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative complications and mortality. This analysis considered various well-known risk factors of postoperative morbidity, including frailty, laparotomy, and peritonitis, as potential predictors. Adjustments were made for other confounding variables to determine the independent effect of frailty on outcomes. Variables for the multivariate analysis were chosen based on clinical relevance.

The variable BMI was classified into two groups: 18.5–25 kg/m2 (reference) and greater than 25 kg/m2. Similarly, the variable ASA grade was classified into two groups: I–II (reference) and III–IV. The degree of contamination was classified according to the surgical wound classification (SWC) system: 1, clean; 2, clean contaminated; 3, contaminated; and 4, dirty31. The variable SWC was then subdivided into two groups: 1–2 (reference) and 3–4. The surgical approach was classified into two groups: laparoscopy only (reference) and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy and laparotomy only. Age was classified into four groups: less than 60 years; 60–69 years; 70–79 years; and greater than or equal to 80 years.

Results

Demographics

A total of 607 patients were eligible for inclusion. Of these 607 patients, 87 patients were excluded, meaning that a total of 520 patients were included in this study (Fig. 1). Then, three categories based on CFS were applied: patients with no frailty (CFS 1–3, 336 patients), patients with mild to moderate frailty (CFS 4–6, 136 patients), and patients with severe frailty (CFS 7–9, 48 patients). For patients in the CFS 7–9 group, 25, 19, and 4 patients were noted for CFS 7, CFS 8, and CFS 9 respectively. Group allocation and baseline data are shown in Table 1.

Flow chart showing the inclusion and exclusion of patients in the present study
Fig. 1

Flow chart showing the inclusion and exclusion of patients in the present study

MEAS, major emergency abdominal surgery.

Open in new tabDownload slide
Table 1
Open in new tab

Baseline data of patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery according to the clinical frailty scale

CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Age (years), median (i.q.r.)62 (50–76)72 (63–82)79 (75–89)0.020*
Sex
 Male160 (47.5)66 (48.5)18 (37.5)0.600
 Female176 (52.5)70 (51.5)30 (62.5)
BMI (kg/m2), median (i.q.r.)24.8 (21.1–27.8)24.9 (20.9–27.8)22.9 (19.4–25.0)0.610
ASA grade
 I–II243 (72.3)45 (33.1)7 (15)<0.001*
 III–IV58 (17.3)91 (66.9)41 (85)0.010*
 NA35 (10.4)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
WHO PS
 0–1279 (83.0)68 (50.0)7 (15)0.002*
 2–420 (6.5)68 (50.0)41 (85)<0.001*
 NA35 (10.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
Alcohol consumption per week (units)
 087 (25.9)33 (24.3)11 (23)0.710
 1–7125 (37.2)57 (41.9)20 (42)0.340
 8–1498 (29.2)28 (20.5)10 (21)0.060
 >1426 (7.7)18 (13.2)7 (15)0.060
Smoking status
 Never175 (52.0)42 (30.9)12 (25)<0.001*
 Previously (>8 weeks)112 (33.5)66 (48.5)21 (44)0.002*
 Active49 (14.5)28 (20.6)15 (31)0.110
Cardiac108 (32.1)97 (71.3)33 (69)<0.001*
 IHD22 (6.5)17 (12.5)9 (19)0.030*
 Heart failure7 (2.1)11 (8.1)2 (4)0.002*
 Hypertension71 (21.1)74 (54.4)20 (42)<0.001*
 Atrial fibrillation23 (6.8)23 (16.9)10 (21)<0.001*
 Other (valve disease, previous PE or DVT, high-degree AV block)11 (3.3)9 (6.6)7 (15)0.100
Endocrinological47 (14.0)35 (25.7)13 (27)0.002*
 Diabetes type 1 and type 218 (5.4)17 (12.5)7 (15)0.007*
 Thyroid disease19 (5.7)13 (9.6)2 (4)0.120
 Other (pituitary gland disease, osteoporosis)10 (3.0)9 (6.6)4 (8)0.070
Pulmonary24 (7.1)30 (22.1)9 (19)<0.001*
 COPD12 (3.6)19 (14.0)8 (17)<0.001*
 Asthma12 (3.6)10 (7.4)1 (2)0.070
 Other (lung fibrosis, sarcoidosis)0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0)n.a.
Renal10 (3.0)17 (12.5)4 (8)<0.001*
 CKD5 (1.5)13 (9.6)1 (2)<0.001*
 Hydronephrosis1 (0.3)3 (2.2)1 (2)n.a.
 Other (kidney stone, SLE, pyelonephritis)4 (1.2)3 (2.2)2 (4)n.a.
Cerebral21 (6.3)28 (20.6)19 (40)<0.001*
 Previous stroke or TIA12 (3.6)15 (11.0)11 (23)<0.001*
 Dementia0 (0.0)3 (2.2)5 (10)n.a.
 Other8 (2.4)14 (10.3)5 (10)0.010*
Gastroenterological26 (7.7)32 (23.5)7 (15)<0.001*
 Liver cirrhosis2 (0.6)11 (8.1)2 (4)<0.001*
 IBD12 (3.6)4 (2.9)0 (0)0.730
 Chronic pancreatitis6 (1.8)12 (8.8)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other (steatosis, IBS, microscopic colitis)5 (1.5)5 (3.7)0 (0)0.010*
Cancer
 Never272 (81.0)91 (66.9)31 (65)0.120
 Active cancer26 (7.7)21 (15.4)7 (15)0.010*
 Previous cancer38 (11.3)24 (17.6)10 (21)0.060
Previous abdominal surgery153 (45.5)65 (47.8)13 (27)0.650
 Laparoscopic86 (25.6)29 (21.3)5 (10)0.330
 Open (laparotomy)67 (19.9)36 (26.5)8 (17)0.120
CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Age (years), median (i.q.r.)62 (50–76)72 (63–82)79 (75–89)0.020*
Sex
 Male160 (47.5)66 (48.5)18 (37.5)0.600
 Female176 (52.5)70 (51.5)30 (62.5)
BMI (kg/m2), median (i.q.r.)24.8 (21.1–27.8)24.9 (20.9–27.8)22.9 (19.4–25.0)0.610
ASA grade
 I–II243 (72.3)45 (33.1)7 (15)<0.001*
 III–IV58 (17.3)91 (66.9)41 (85)0.010*
 NA35 (10.4)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
WHO PS
 0–1279 (83.0)68 (50.0)7 (15)0.002*
 2–420 (6.5)68 (50.0)41 (85)<0.001*
 NA35 (10.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
Alcohol consumption per week (units)
 087 (25.9)33 (24.3)11 (23)0.710
 1–7125 (37.2)57 (41.9)20 (42)0.340
 8–1498 (29.2)28 (20.5)10 (21)0.060
 >1426 (7.7)18 (13.2)7 (15)0.060
Smoking status
 Never175 (52.0)42 (30.9)12 (25)<0.001*
 Previously (>8 weeks)112 (33.5)66 (48.5)21 (44)0.002*
 Active49 (14.5)28 (20.6)15 (31)0.110
Cardiac108 (32.1)97 (71.3)33 (69)<0.001*
 IHD22 (6.5)17 (12.5)9 (19)0.030*
 Heart failure7 (2.1)11 (8.1)2 (4)0.002*
 Hypertension71 (21.1)74 (54.4)20 (42)<0.001*
 Atrial fibrillation23 (6.8)23 (16.9)10 (21)<0.001*
 Other (valve disease, previous PE or DVT, high-degree AV block)11 (3.3)9 (6.6)7 (15)0.100
Endocrinological47 (14.0)35 (25.7)13 (27)0.002*
 Diabetes type 1 and type 218 (5.4)17 (12.5)7 (15)0.007*
 Thyroid disease19 (5.7)13 (9.6)2 (4)0.120
 Other (pituitary gland disease, osteoporosis)10 (3.0)9 (6.6)4 (8)0.070
Pulmonary24 (7.1)30 (22.1)9 (19)<0.001*
 COPD12 (3.6)19 (14.0)8 (17)<0.001*
 Asthma12 (3.6)10 (7.4)1 (2)0.070
 Other (lung fibrosis, sarcoidosis)0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0)n.a.
Renal10 (3.0)17 (12.5)4 (8)<0.001*
 CKD5 (1.5)13 (9.6)1 (2)<0.001*
 Hydronephrosis1 (0.3)3 (2.2)1 (2)n.a.
 Other (kidney stone, SLE, pyelonephritis)4 (1.2)3 (2.2)2 (4)n.a.
Cerebral21 (6.3)28 (20.6)19 (40)<0.001*
 Previous stroke or TIA12 (3.6)15 (11.0)11 (23)<0.001*
 Dementia0 (0.0)3 (2.2)5 (10)n.a.
 Other8 (2.4)14 (10.3)5 (10)0.010*
Gastroenterological26 (7.7)32 (23.5)7 (15)<0.001*
 Liver cirrhosis2 (0.6)11 (8.1)2 (4)<0.001*
 IBD12 (3.6)4 (2.9)0 (0)0.730
 Chronic pancreatitis6 (1.8)12 (8.8)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other (steatosis, IBS, microscopic colitis)5 (1.5)5 (3.7)0 (0)0.010*
Cancer
 Never272 (81.0)91 (66.9)31 (65)0.120
 Active cancer26 (7.7)21 (15.4)7 (15)0.010*
 Previous cancer38 (11.3)24 (17.6)10 (21)0.060
Previous abdominal surgery153 (45.5)65 (47.8)13 (27)0.650
 Laparoscopic86 (25.6)29 (21.3)5 (10)0.330
 Open (laparotomy)67 (19.9)36 (26.5)8 (17)0.120

Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated. *Statistically significant. CFS, clinical frailty scale; i.q.r., interquartile range; PS, performance score; IHD, ischaemic heart disease; PE, pulmonary embolism; DVT, deep-vein thrombosis; AV, atrioventricular block; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CKD, chronic kidney disease; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; TIA, transient ischaemic attack; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome.

Table 1
Open in new tab

Baseline data of patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery according to the clinical frailty scale

CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Age (years), median (i.q.r.)62 (50–76)72 (63–82)79 (75–89)0.020*
Sex
 Male160 (47.5)66 (48.5)18 (37.5)0.600
 Female176 (52.5)70 (51.5)30 (62.5)
BMI (kg/m2), median (i.q.r.)24.8 (21.1–27.8)24.9 (20.9–27.8)22.9 (19.4–25.0)0.610
ASA grade
 I–II243 (72.3)45 (33.1)7 (15)<0.001*
 III–IV58 (17.3)91 (66.9)41 (85)0.010*
 NA35 (10.4)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
WHO PS
 0–1279 (83.0)68 (50.0)7 (15)0.002*
 2–420 (6.5)68 (50.0)41 (85)<0.001*
 NA35 (10.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
Alcohol consumption per week (units)
 087 (25.9)33 (24.3)11 (23)0.710
 1–7125 (37.2)57 (41.9)20 (42)0.340
 8–1498 (29.2)28 (20.5)10 (21)0.060
 >1426 (7.7)18 (13.2)7 (15)0.060
Smoking status
 Never175 (52.0)42 (30.9)12 (25)<0.001*
 Previously (>8 weeks)112 (33.5)66 (48.5)21 (44)0.002*
 Active49 (14.5)28 (20.6)15 (31)0.110
Cardiac108 (32.1)97 (71.3)33 (69)<0.001*
 IHD22 (6.5)17 (12.5)9 (19)0.030*
 Heart failure7 (2.1)11 (8.1)2 (4)0.002*
 Hypertension71 (21.1)74 (54.4)20 (42)<0.001*
 Atrial fibrillation23 (6.8)23 (16.9)10 (21)<0.001*
 Other (valve disease, previous PE or DVT, high-degree AV block)11 (3.3)9 (6.6)7 (15)0.100
Endocrinological47 (14.0)35 (25.7)13 (27)0.002*
 Diabetes type 1 and type 218 (5.4)17 (12.5)7 (15)0.007*
 Thyroid disease19 (5.7)13 (9.6)2 (4)0.120
 Other (pituitary gland disease, osteoporosis)10 (3.0)9 (6.6)4 (8)0.070
Pulmonary24 (7.1)30 (22.1)9 (19)<0.001*
 COPD12 (3.6)19 (14.0)8 (17)<0.001*
 Asthma12 (3.6)10 (7.4)1 (2)0.070
 Other (lung fibrosis, sarcoidosis)0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0)n.a.
Renal10 (3.0)17 (12.5)4 (8)<0.001*
 CKD5 (1.5)13 (9.6)1 (2)<0.001*
 Hydronephrosis1 (0.3)3 (2.2)1 (2)n.a.
 Other (kidney stone, SLE, pyelonephritis)4 (1.2)3 (2.2)2 (4)n.a.
Cerebral21 (6.3)28 (20.6)19 (40)<0.001*
 Previous stroke or TIA12 (3.6)15 (11.0)11 (23)<0.001*
 Dementia0 (0.0)3 (2.2)5 (10)n.a.
 Other8 (2.4)14 (10.3)5 (10)0.010*
Gastroenterological26 (7.7)32 (23.5)7 (15)<0.001*
 Liver cirrhosis2 (0.6)11 (8.1)2 (4)<0.001*
 IBD12 (3.6)4 (2.9)0 (0)0.730
 Chronic pancreatitis6 (1.8)12 (8.8)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other (steatosis, IBS, microscopic colitis)5 (1.5)5 (3.7)0 (0)0.010*
Cancer
 Never272 (81.0)91 (66.9)31 (65)0.120
 Active cancer26 (7.7)21 (15.4)7 (15)0.010*
 Previous cancer38 (11.3)24 (17.6)10 (21)0.060
Previous abdominal surgery153 (45.5)65 (47.8)13 (27)0.650
 Laparoscopic86 (25.6)29 (21.3)5 (10)0.330
 Open (laparotomy)67 (19.9)36 (26.5)8 (17)0.120
CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Age (years), median (i.q.r.)62 (50–76)72 (63–82)79 (75–89)0.020*
Sex
 Male160 (47.5)66 (48.5)18 (37.5)0.600
 Female176 (52.5)70 (51.5)30 (62.5)
BMI (kg/m2), median (i.q.r.)24.8 (21.1–27.8)24.9 (20.9–27.8)22.9 (19.4–25.0)0.610
ASA grade
 I–II243 (72.3)45 (33.1)7 (15)<0.001*
 III–IV58 (17.3)91 (66.9)41 (85)0.010*
 NA35 (10.4)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
WHO PS
 0–1279 (83.0)68 (50.0)7 (15)0.002*
 2–420 (6.5)68 (50.0)41 (85)<0.001*
 NA35 (10.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.a.
Alcohol consumption per week (units)
 087 (25.9)33 (24.3)11 (23)0.710
 1–7125 (37.2)57 (41.9)20 (42)0.340
 8–1498 (29.2)28 (20.5)10 (21)0.060
 >1426 (7.7)18 (13.2)7 (15)0.060
Smoking status
 Never175 (52.0)42 (30.9)12 (25)<0.001*
 Previously (>8 weeks)112 (33.5)66 (48.5)21 (44)0.002*
 Active49 (14.5)28 (20.6)15 (31)0.110
Cardiac108 (32.1)97 (71.3)33 (69)<0.001*
 IHD22 (6.5)17 (12.5)9 (19)0.030*
 Heart failure7 (2.1)11 (8.1)2 (4)0.002*
 Hypertension71 (21.1)74 (54.4)20 (42)<0.001*
 Atrial fibrillation23 (6.8)23 (16.9)10 (21)<0.001*
 Other (valve disease, previous PE or DVT, high-degree AV block)11 (3.3)9 (6.6)7 (15)0.100
Endocrinological47 (14.0)35 (25.7)13 (27)0.002*
 Diabetes type 1 and type 218 (5.4)17 (12.5)7 (15)0.007*
 Thyroid disease19 (5.7)13 (9.6)2 (4)0.120
 Other (pituitary gland disease, osteoporosis)10 (3.0)9 (6.6)4 (8)0.070
Pulmonary24 (7.1)30 (22.1)9 (19)<0.001*
 COPD12 (3.6)19 (14.0)8 (17)<0.001*
 Asthma12 (3.6)10 (7.4)1 (2)0.070
 Other (lung fibrosis, sarcoidosis)0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0)n.a.
Renal10 (3.0)17 (12.5)4 (8)<0.001*
 CKD5 (1.5)13 (9.6)1 (2)<0.001*
 Hydronephrosis1 (0.3)3 (2.2)1 (2)n.a.
 Other (kidney stone, SLE, pyelonephritis)4 (1.2)3 (2.2)2 (4)n.a.
Cerebral21 (6.3)28 (20.6)19 (40)<0.001*
 Previous stroke or TIA12 (3.6)15 (11.0)11 (23)<0.001*
 Dementia0 (0.0)3 (2.2)5 (10)n.a.
 Other8 (2.4)14 (10.3)5 (10)0.010*
Gastroenterological26 (7.7)32 (23.5)7 (15)<0.001*
 Liver cirrhosis2 (0.6)11 (8.1)2 (4)<0.001*
 IBD12 (3.6)4 (2.9)0 (0)0.730
 Chronic pancreatitis6 (1.8)12 (8.8)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other (steatosis, IBS, microscopic colitis)5 (1.5)5 (3.7)0 (0)0.010*
Cancer
 Never272 (81.0)91 (66.9)31 (65)0.120
 Active cancer26 (7.7)21 (15.4)7 (15)0.010*
 Previous cancer38 (11.3)24 (17.6)10 (21)0.060
Previous abdominal surgery153 (45.5)65 (47.8)13 (27)0.650
 Laparoscopic86 (25.6)29 (21.3)5 (10)0.330
 Open (laparotomy)67 (19.9)36 (26.5)8 (17)0.120

Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated. *Statistically significant. CFS, clinical frailty scale; i.q.r., interquartile range; PS, performance score; IHD, ischaemic heart disease; PE, pulmonary embolism; DVT, deep-vein thrombosis; AV, atrioventricular block; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CKD, chronic kidney disease; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; TIA, transient ischaemic attack; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome.

Intraoperative data

In total, 292 primary operations and 44 reoperations were identified for patients in the CFS 1–3 group, whereas 122 primary operations and 14 reoperations were identified for patients in the CFS 4–6 group and 47 primary operations and 1 reoperation were identified for patients in the CFS 7–9 group (P = 0.400). There were some differences regarding perioperative findings in the different CFS groups. The likelihood of perforation as a perioperative finding increased in frail patients (rates of 22.6%, 33.8%, and 40% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P = 0.010) and intraoperative malignant findings were more frequently seen in frail patients (rates of 7.1%, 16.9%, and 17% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P = 0.001; Table 2). Patients in the CFS 4–6 and CFS 7–9 groups were more likely to be converted from laparoscopy to laparotomy (rates of 36.0%, 65.4%, and 54% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001).

Table 2
Open in new tab

Distribution of intraoperative data according to the clinical frailty scale

CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Primary operation292 (86.9)122 (89.7)47 (98)0.400
Reoperation44 (13.1)14 (10.3)1 (2)0.400
Perioperative findings
 Bowel obstruction180 (53.6)71 (52.2)27 (56)0.790
  SBO150 (44.6)55 (40.4)17 (35)0.400
  LBO24 (7.1)8 (5.9)8 (17)0.650
  Both SBO and LBO6 (1.8)8 (5.9)2 (4)0.020*
 Perforation76 (22.6)46 (33.8)19 (40)0.010*
  Gastric ulcer6 (1.8)6 (4.4)6 (13)0.100
  Duodenal ulcer6 (1.8)7 (5.1)3 (6)0.040*
  Small intestine24 (7.1)8 (5.9)3 (6)0.620
  Large intestine38 (11.3)23 (16.9)6 (13)0.100
  Rectum0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
  Anastomotic leakage4 (1.2)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
 Degree of peritonitis†
  177 (22.9)8 (5.9)4 (8)<0.001*
  2191 (56.8)86 (63.2)24 (50)0.200
  331 (9.2)19 (14.0)8 (17)0.130
  437 (11.0)23 (16.9)12 (25)0.080
  No328 (97.6)331 (98.5)46 (96)0.400
 Intraoperative malignant findings24 (7.1)23 (16.9)8 (17)0.001*
  Small intestine2 (0.6)2 (1.5)0 (0)0.600
  Large intestine/rectum16 (4.8)15 (11.0)6 (13)0.001*
  Carcinosis6 (1.8)6 (4.4)2 (4)0.100
Method of operation
 Laparotomy92 (27.4)28 (20.6)12 (25)0.120
 Laparoscopy123 (36.6)19 (14.0)10 (21)<0.001*
 Laparoscopy converted to laparotomy121 (36.0)89 (65.4)26 (54)<0.001*
Resection138 (41.1)71 (52.2)20 (42)0.020*
 Stomach/duodenum2 (1.4)0 (0.0)0 (0)n.a.
 Small bowel78 (56.5)35 (59.3)5 (25)0.560
 Large bowel58 (42.0)36 (50.7)15 (75)0.020*
Anastomosis
 No252 (75.0)96 (70.6)38 (79)0.300
 Yes84 (25.0)40 (29.4)10 (21)0.300
Closure of abdominal wall
 Primary suture317 (94.3)126 (92.6)46 (96)0.500
 Intra-abdominal VAC treatment19 (5.7)9 (6.6)2 (4)0.500
 Traction mesh and VAC0 (0.0)1 (0.7)1 (2)n.a.
Mass closure
 Yes8 (2.4)5 (1.5)2 (4)0.400
CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Primary operation292 (86.9)122 (89.7)47 (98)0.400
Reoperation44 (13.1)14 (10.3)1 (2)0.400
Perioperative findings
 Bowel obstruction180 (53.6)71 (52.2)27 (56)0.790
  SBO150 (44.6)55 (40.4)17 (35)0.400
  LBO24 (7.1)8 (5.9)8 (17)0.650
  Both SBO and LBO6 (1.8)8 (5.9)2 (4)0.020*
 Perforation76 (22.6)46 (33.8)19 (40)0.010*
  Gastric ulcer6 (1.8)6 (4.4)6 (13)0.100
  Duodenal ulcer6 (1.8)7 (5.1)3 (6)0.040*
  Small intestine24 (7.1)8 (5.9)3 (6)0.620
  Large intestine38 (11.3)23 (16.9)6 (13)0.100
  Rectum0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
  Anastomotic leakage4 (1.2)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
 Degree of peritonitis†
  177 (22.9)8 (5.9)4 (8)<0.001*
  2191 (56.8)86 (63.2)24 (50)0.200
  331 (9.2)19 (14.0)8 (17)0.130
  437 (11.0)23 (16.9)12 (25)0.080
  No328 (97.6)331 (98.5)46 (96)0.400
 Intraoperative malignant findings24 (7.1)23 (16.9)8 (17)0.001*
  Small intestine2 (0.6)2 (1.5)0 (0)0.600
  Large intestine/rectum16 (4.8)15 (11.0)6 (13)0.001*
  Carcinosis6 (1.8)6 (4.4)2 (4)0.100
Method of operation
 Laparotomy92 (27.4)28 (20.6)12 (25)0.120
 Laparoscopy123 (36.6)19 (14.0)10 (21)<0.001*
 Laparoscopy converted to laparotomy121 (36.0)89 (65.4)26 (54)<0.001*
Resection138 (41.1)71 (52.2)20 (42)0.020*
 Stomach/duodenum2 (1.4)0 (0.0)0 (0)n.a.
 Small bowel78 (56.5)35 (59.3)5 (25)0.560
 Large bowel58 (42.0)36 (50.7)15 (75)0.020*
Anastomosis
 No252 (75.0)96 (70.6)38 (79)0.300
 Yes84 (25.0)40 (29.4)10 (21)0.300
Closure of abdominal wall
 Primary suture317 (94.3)126 (92.6)46 (96)0.500
 Intra-abdominal VAC treatment19 (5.7)9 (6.6)2 (4)0.500
 Traction mesh and VAC0 (0.0)1 (0.7)1 (2)n.a.
Mass closure
 Yes8 (2.4)5 (1.5)2 (4)0.400

Values are n (%). *Statistically significant. †According to the surgical wound classification system: 1, clean; 2, clean contaminated; 3, contaminated; and 4, dirty. CFS, clinical frailty scale; SBO, small bowel obstruction; LBO, large bowel obstruction; VAC, vacuum-assisted closure.

Table 2
Open in new tab

Distribution of intraoperative data according to the clinical frailty scale

CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Primary operation292 (86.9)122 (89.7)47 (98)0.400
Reoperation44 (13.1)14 (10.3)1 (2)0.400
Perioperative findings
 Bowel obstruction180 (53.6)71 (52.2)27 (56)0.790
  SBO150 (44.6)55 (40.4)17 (35)0.400
  LBO24 (7.1)8 (5.9)8 (17)0.650
  Both SBO and LBO6 (1.8)8 (5.9)2 (4)0.020*
 Perforation76 (22.6)46 (33.8)19 (40)0.010*
  Gastric ulcer6 (1.8)6 (4.4)6 (13)0.100
  Duodenal ulcer6 (1.8)7 (5.1)3 (6)0.040*
  Small intestine24 (7.1)8 (5.9)3 (6)0.620
  Large intestine38 (11.3)23 (16.9)6 (13)0.100
  Rectum0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
  Anastomotic leakage4 (1.2)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
 Degree of peritonitis†
  177 (22.9)8 (5.9)4 (8)<0.001*
  2191 (56.8)86 (63.2)24 (50)0.200
  331 (9.2)19 (14.0)8 (17)0.130
  437 (11.0)23 (16.9)12 (25)0.080
  No328 (97.6)331 (98.5)46 (96)0.400
 Intraoperative malignant findings24 (7.1)23 (16.9)8 (17)0.001*
  Small intestine2 (0.6)2 (1.5)0 (0)0.600
  Large intestine/rectum16 (4.8)15 (11.0)6 (13)0.001*
  Carcinosis6 (1.8)6 (4.4)2 (4)0.100
Method of operation
 Laparotomy92 (27.4)28 (20.6)12 (25)0.120
 Laparoscopy123 (36.6)19 (14.0)10 (21)<0.001*
 Laparoscopy converted to laparotomy121 (36.0)89 (65.4)26 (54)<0.001*
Resection138 (41.1)71 (52.2)20 (42)0.020*
 Stomach/duodenum2 (1.4)0 (0.0)0 (0)n.a.
 Small bowel78 (56.5)35 (59.3)5 (25)0.560
 Large bowel58 (42.0)36 (50.7)15 (75)0.020*
Anastomosis
 No252 (75.0)96 (70.6)38 (79)0.300
 Yes84 (25.0)40 (29.4)10 (21)0.300
Closure of abdominal wall
 Primary suture317 (94.3)126 (92.6)46 (96)0.500
 Intra-abdominal VAC treatment19 (5.7)9 (6.6)2 (4)0.500
 Traction mesh and VAC0 (0.0)1 (0.7)1 (2)n.a.
Mass closure
 Yes8 (2.4)5 (1.5)2 (4)0.400
CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Primary operation292 (86.9)122 (89.7)47 (98)0.400
Reoperation44 (13.1)14 (10.3)1 (2)0.400
Perioperative findings
 Bowel obstruction180 (53.6)71 (52.2)27 (56)0.790
  SBO150 (44.6)55 (40.4)17 (35)0.400
  LBO24 (7.1)8 (5.9)8 (17)0.650
  Both SBO and LBO6 (1.8)8 (5.9)2 (4)0.020*
 Perforation76 (22.6)46 (33.8)19 (40)0.010*
  Gastric ulcer6 (1.8)6 (4.4)6 (13)0.100
  Duodenal ulcer6 (1.8)7 (5.1)3 (6)0.040*
  Small intestine24 (7.1)8 (5.9)3 (6)0.620
  Large intestine38 (11.3)23 (16.9)6 (13)0.100
  Rectum0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
  Anastomotic leakage4 (1.2)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)n.a.
 Degree of peritonitis†
  177 (22.9)8 (5.9)4 (8)<0.001*
  2191 (56.8)86 (63.2)24 (50)0.200
  331 (9.2)19 (14.0)8 (17)0.130
  437 (11.0)23 (16.9)12 (25)0.080
  No328 (97.6)331 (98.5)46 (96)0.400
 Intraoperative malignant findings24 (7.1)23 (16.9)8 (17)0.001*
  Small intestine2 (0.6)2 (1.5)0 (0)0.600
  Large intestine/rectum16 (4.8)15 (11.0)6 (13)0.001*
  Carcinosis6 (1.8)6 (4.4)2 (4)0.100
Method of operation
 Laparotomy92 (27.4)28 (20.6)12 (25)0.120
 Laparoscopy123 (36.6)19 (14.0)10 (21)<0.001*
 Laparoscopy converted to laparotomy121 (36.0)89 (65.4)26 (54)<0.001*
Resection138 (41.1)71 (52.2)20 (42)0.020*
 Stomach/duodenum2 (1.4)0 (0.0)0 (0)n.a.
 Small bowel78 (56.5)35 (59.3)5 (25)0.560
 Large bowel58 (42.0)36 (50.7)15 (75)0.020*
Anastomosis
 No252 (75.0)96 (70.6)38 (79)0.300
 Yes84 (25.0)40 (29.4)10 (21)0.300
Closure of abdominal wall
 Primary suture317 (94.3)126 (92.6)46 (96)0.500
 Intra-abdominal VAC treatment19 (5.7)9 (6.6)2 (4)0.500
 Traction mesh and VAC0 (0.0)1 (0.7)1 (2)n.a.
Mass closure
 Yes8 (2.4)5 (1.5)2 (4)0.400

Values are n (%). *Statistically significant. †According to the surgical wound classification system: 1, clean; 2, clean contaminated; 3, contaminated; and 4, dirty. CFS, clinical frailty scale; SBO, small bowel obstruction; LBO, large bowel obstruction; VAC, vacuum-assisted closure.

Postoperative complications

Patients in the CFS 1–3 group had significantly fewer total complications than patients in the CFS 4–6 group and patients in the CFS 7–9 group (120, 250, and 277 complications per 100 patients respectively, P < 0.001; Table 3). This was also demonstrated for organ-specific complications; postoperative pulmonary complications increased with increasing frailty (rates of 11.6%, 39.0%, and 52% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001). Pneumonia was the most frequent pulmonary complication (rates of 6.0%, 13.2%, and 19% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001). Cerebral complications were frequent (rates of 5.4%, 21.3%, and 17% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001) and delirium was the most likely cerebral complication to occur (rates of 2.7%, 18.4%, and 13% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001). Cardiac complications (rates of 7.1%, 20.6%, and 21% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001) and renal complications (rates of 5.4%, 18.4%, and 13% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001) also increased in the frail groups, with arrhythmia (rates of 3.6%, 8.8%, and 6% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001) and acute renal failure (rates of 3.3%, 11.0%, and 10% for patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups respectively, P < 0.001) being the most frequent cardiac and renal complications.

Table 3
Open in new tab

Distribution of organ-specific postoperative complications according to the clinical frailty scale

CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Intrahospital complications per 100 patient, n120250277<0.001*
Thirty-day mortality12 (3.6)25 (18.4)16 (33)<0.001*
Cardiac24 (7.1)28 (20.6)10 (21)<0.001*
 Cardiac arrest8 (2.4)11 (8.1)4 (8)0.004*
 Arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter)12 (3.6)12 (8.8)3 (6)0.020*
 Other†3 (0.9)6 (4.4)3 (6)0.100
Pulmonary39 (11.6)53 (39.0)25 (52)<0.001*
 Respiratory failure7 (2.1)10 (7.4)3 (6)0.005*
 Pneumonia20 (6.0)18 (13.2)9 (19)0.009*
 Pleural effusion5 (1.5)9 (6.6)5 (10)0.003*
 Other‡7 (2.1)15 (11.0)9 (19)0.410
Cerebral18 (5.4)29 (21.3)8 (17)<0.001*
 Delirium9 (2.7)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Other§9 (2.7)5 (3.7)2 (4)0.180
Renal18 (5.4)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Creatinine >27 μmol/l11 (3.3)15 (11.0)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other¶7 (2.1)10 (7.4)1 (2)<0.001*
Surgical108 (32.1)56 (41.2)32 (67)0.060
 Burst abdomen#15 (5)7 (5)4 (8)0.750
 Anastomotic leakage**5 (6)0 (0)1 (10)n.a.
 Intra-abdominal abscess13 (3.9)5 (3.7)4 (8)0.920
 Intestinal paralysis (>7 days)26 (7.7)16 (11.8)5 (10)0.160
 Intra-abdominal bleeding6 (1.8)5 (3.7)2 (4)n.a.
 Other††43 (12.8)23 (16.9)11 (23)0.330
Wound related36 (10.7)16 (11.88)3 (6)0.740
 Wound infection14 (4.2)7 (5.1)1 (2)0.640
 Wound rupture11 (3.3)1 (0.7)1 (2)0.110
 Other‡‡11 (3.3)8 (5.9)1 (2)0.210
Infectious35 (10.4)32 (23.5)17 (35)<0.001*
 Sepsis12 (3.6)13 (9.6)5 (10)0.009*
 Urinary tract infection4 (1.2)4 (2.9)4 (8)0.180
 Other§§19 (5.7)15 (11.0)8 (17)0.070
CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Intrahospital complications per 100 patient, n120250277<0.001*
Thirty-day mortality12 (3.6)25 (18.4)16 (33)<0.001*
Cardiac24 (7.1)28 (20.6)10 (21)<0.001*
 Cardiac arrest8 (2.4)11 (8.1)4 (8)0.004*
 Arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter)12 (3.6)12 (8.8)3 (6)0.020*
 Other†3 (0.9)6 (4.4)3 (6)0.100
Pulmonary39 (11.6)53 (39.0)25 (52)<0.001*
 Respiratory failure7 (2.1)10 (7.4)3 (6)0.005*
 Pneumonia20 (6.0)18 (13.2)9 (19)0.009*
 Pleural effusion5 (1.5)9 (6.6)5 (10)0.003*
 Other‡7 (2.1)15 (11.0)9 (19)0.410
Cerebral18 (5.4)29 (21.3)8 (17)<0.001*
 Delirium9 (2.7)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Other§9 (2.7)5 (3.7)2 (4)0.180
Renal18 (5.4)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Creatinine >27 μmol/l11 (3.3)15 (11.0)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other¶7 (2.1)10 (7.4)1 (2)<0.001*
Surgical108 (32.1)56 (41.2)32 (67)0.060
 Burst abdomen#15 (5)7 (5)4 (8)0.750
 Anastomotic leakage**5 (6)0 (0)1 (10)n.a.
 Intra-abdominal abscess13 (3.9)5 (3.7)4 (8)0.920
 Intestinal paralysis (>7 days)26 (7.7)16 (11.8)5 (10)0.160
 Intra-abdominal bleeding6 (1.8)5 (3.7)2 (4)n.a.
 Other††43 (12.8)23 (16.9)11 (23)0.330
Wound related36 (10.7)16 (11.88)3 (6)0.740
 Wound infection14 (4.2)7 (5.1)1 (2)0.640
 Wound rupture11 (3.3)1 (0.7)1 (2)0.110
 Other‡‡11 (3.3)8 (5.9)1 (2)0.210
Infectious35 (10.4)32 (23.5)17 (35)<0.001*
 Sepsis12 (3.6)13 (9.6)5 (10)0.009*
 Urinary tract infection4 (1.2)4 (2.9)4 (8)0.180
 Other§§19 (5.7)15 (11.0)8 (17)0.070

Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated. *Statistically significant. †Acute myocardial infarction, myocardical infarction after non-cardiac surgery, acute heart failure, worsening of heart failure, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis. ‡Atelectasis, bronchial spasm, lung statis, pneumothorax. §Postoperative cognitive decline, depression, anxiety, intracranial haemorrhage, neuropathy. ¶Worsening of chronic kidney failure, dialysis, overhydration, electrolyte imbalance. #Number (%) of patients undergoing primary closure with suture. **Number (%) of patients undergoing primary anastomosis. ††Gastrointestinal tract bleeding, subileus, bowel obstruction, visceral ischaemia, reperforation. ‡‡Stoma separation, wound haematoma, incisional pain. §§Oral candida, unknown infectious focus, intestinal infection. CFS, clinical frailty scale.

Table 3
Open in new tab

Distribution of organ-specific postoperative complications according to the clinical frailty scale

CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Intrahospital complications per 100 patient, n120250277<0.001*
Thirty-day mortality12 (3.6)25 (18.4)16 (33)<0.001*
Cardiac24 (7.1)28 (20.6)10 (21)<0.001*
 Cardiac arrest8 (2.4)11 (8.1)4 (8)0.004*
 Arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter)12 (3.6)12 (8.8)3 (6)0.020*
 Other†3 (0.9)6 (4.4)3 (6)0.100
Pulmonary39 (11.6)53 (39.0)25 (52)<0.001*
 Respiratory failure7 (2.1)10 (7.4)3 (6)0.005*
 Pneumonia20 (6.0)18 (13.2)9 (19)0.009*
 Pleural effusion5 (1.5)9 (6.6)5 (10)0.003*
 Other‡7 (2.1)15 (11.0)9 (19)0.410
Cerebral18 (5.4)29 (21.3)8 (17)<0.001*
 Delirium9 (2.7)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Other§9 (2.7)5 (3.7)2 (4)0.180
Renal18 (5.4)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Creatinine >27 μmol/l11 (3.3)15 (11.0)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other¶7 (2.1)10 (7.4)1 (2)<0.001*
Surgical108 (32.1)56 (41.2)32 (67)0.060
 Burst abdomen#15 (5)7 (5)4 (8)0.750
 Anastomotic leakage**5 (6)0 (0)1 (10)n.a.
 Intra-abdominal abscess13 (3.9)5 (3.7)4 (8)0.920
 Intestinal paralysis (>7 days)26 (7.7)16 (11.8)5 (10)0.160
 Intra-abdominal bleeding6 (1.8)5 (3.7)2 (4)n.a.
 Other††43 (12.8)23 (16.9)11 (23)0.330
Wound related36 (10.7)16 (11.88)3 (6)0.740
 Wound infection14 (4.2)7 (5.1)1 (2)0.640
 Wound rupture11 (3.3)1 (0.7)1 (2)0.110
 Other‡‡11 (3.3)8 (5.9)1 (2)0.210
Infectious35 (10.4)32 (23.5)17 (35)<0.001*
 Sepsis12 (3.6)13 (9.6)5 (10)0.009*
 Urinary tract infection4 (1.2)4 (2.9)4 (8)0.180
 Other§§19 (5.7)15 (11.0)8 (17)0.070
CFS 1–3, n = 336CFS 4–6, n = 136CFS 7–9, n = 48P
Intrahospital complications per 100 patient, n120250277<0.001*
Thirty-day mortality12 (3.6)25 (18.4)16 (33)<0.001*
Cardiac24 (7.1)28 (20.6)10 (21)<0.001*
 Cardiac arrest8 (2.4)11 (8.1)4 (8)0.004*
 Arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter)12 (3.6)12 (8.8)3 (6)0.020*
 Other†3 (0.9)6 (4.4)3 (6)0.100
Pulmonary39 (11.6)53 (39.0)25 (52)<0.001*
 Respiratory failure7 (2.1)10 (7.4)3 (6)0.005*
 Pneumonia20 (6.0)18 (13.2)9 (19)0.009*
 Pleural effusion5 (1.5)9 (6.6)5 (10)0.003*
 Other‡7 (2.1)15 (11.0)9 (19)0.410
Cerebral18 (5.4)29 (21.3)8 (17)<0.001*
 Delirium9 (2.7)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Other§9 (2.7)5 (3.7)2 (4)0.180
Renal18 (5.4)25 (18.4)6 (13)<0.001*
 Creatinine >27 μmol/l11 (3.3)15 (11.0)5 (10)<0.001*
 Other¶7 (2.1)10 (7.4)1 (2)<0.001*
Surgical108 (32.1)56 (41.2)32 (67)0.060
 Burst abdomen#15 (5)7 (5)4 (8)0.750
 Anastomotic leakage**5 (6)0 (0)1 (10)n.a.
 Intra-abdominal abscess13 (3.9)5 (3.7)4 (8)0.920
 Intestinal paralysis (>7 days)26 (7.7)16 (11.8)5 (10)0.160
 Intra-abdominal bleeding6 (1.8)5 (3.7)2 (4)n.a.
 Other††43 (12.8)23 (16.9)11 (23)0.330
Wound related36 (10.7)16 (11.88)3 (6)0.740
 Wound infection14 (4.2)7 (5.1)1 (2)0.640
 Wound rupture11 (3.3)1 (0.7)1 (2)0.110
 Other‡‡11 (3.3)8 (5.9)1 (2)0.210
Infectious35 (10.4)32 (23.5)17 (35)<0.001*
 Sepsis12 (3.6)13 (9.6)5 (10)0.009*
 Urinary tract infection4 (1.2)4 (2.9)4 (8)0.180
 Other§§19 (5.7)15 (11.0)8 (17)0.070

Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated. *Statistically significant. †Acute myocardial infarction, myocardical infarction after non-cardiac surgery, acute heart failure, worsening of heart failure, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis. ‡Atelectasis, bronchial spasm, lung statis, pneumothorax. §Postoperative cognitive decline, depression, anxiety, intracranial haemorrhage, neuropathy. ¶Worsening of chronic kidney failure, dialysis, overhydration, electrolyte imbalance. #Number (%) of patients undergoing primary closure with suture. **Number (%) of patients undergoing primary anastomosis. ††Gastrointestinal tract bleeding, subileus, bowel obstruction, visceral ischaemia, reperforation. ‡‡Stoma separation, wound haematoma, incisional pain. §§Oral candida, unknown infectious focus, intestinal infection. CFS, clinical frailty scale.

No overall difference was found regarding surgical complications for patients in the CFS 1–3 group and for patients in the CFS 4–6 group (32.1% versus 41.2% respectively, P = 0.060), but patients in the CFS 7–9 group had more surgical complications compared with patients in the CFS 1–3 group (67% versus 32.1% respectively, P = 0.001). Differing results regarding rates of anastomotic leakage were seen, with 6% for patients in the CFS 1–3 group, 0% for patients in the CFS 4–6 group, and 10% for patients in the CFS 7–9 group (P = 0.400). No differences were found for burst abdomen or for wound-related infections when comparing non-frail patients with frail patients.

Multivariate analysis

In a multivariate analysis, variables associated with an increased risk of experiencing at least one postoperative complication were ASA grade III–IV (OR 1.90, 95% c.i. 1.10 to 3.30), peritonitis (OR 4.30, 95% c.i. 2.00 to 9.30), laparotomy (OR 2.00, 95% c.i. 1.30 to 3.10), CFS 4–6 (OR 3.10, 95% c.i. 1.70 to 5.80), CFS 7–9 (OR 4.40, 95% c.i. 1.60 to 12.50), and BMI greater than or equal to 25 (OR 1.80, 95% c.i. 1.10 to 3.10) (Fig. 2).

Multivariate regression analysis showing the risk of developing at least one postoperative complication during admission
Fig. 2

Multivariate regression analysis showing the risk of developing at least one postoperative complication during admission

Peritonitis was defined according to the surgical wound classification system: 1, clean; 2, clean contaminated; 3, contaminated; and 4, dirty. CFS, clinical frailty scale.

Open in new tabDownload slide

Mortality

There was a considerable difference in mortality rates for patients with differing levels of frailty, with patients in the CFS 1–3, CFS 4–6, and CFS 7–9 groups exhibiting mortality rates within 30 days of 3.6%, 18.3%, and 33.3% respectively (P < 0.001). The corresponding mortality rates within 3 days were 0.3%, 2.9%, and 10% respectively (P < 0.001), within 7 days were 0.9%, 8.8%, and 23% respectively (P < 0.001), and within 90 days were 7.6%, 26%, and 46% respectively (P < 0.001). The survival within 90 days is illustrated as a survival curve (Fig. 3) for each frailty group.

Survival curves and number at risk table showing the 90-day survival for each frailty group
Fig. 3

Survival curves and number at risk table showing the 90-day survival for each frailty group

The shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals. CFS, clinical frailty scale.

Open in new tabDownload slide

Discussion

Patients with mild to moderate frailty (CFS 4–6) and severe frailty (CFS 7–9) were observed to have a significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications. A pronounced incidence of pulmonary complications, particularly pneumonia, was noted. Postoperative atrial fibrillation and delirium emerged as prevalent complications, particularly noteworthy in patients exhibiting clinical frailty. Additionally, patients with clinical frailty demonstrated an increased susceptibility to acute renal failure and postoperative sepsis as complications. Postoperative delirium and pulmonary complications are particularly well described in several studies, including studies with larger sample sizes, such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews32–34. Although the rate of laparoscopic surgery was notably high for patients in the CFS 1–3 group in this study, there is no indication that laparoscopic surgery is associated with the development of pulmonary complications. The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly higher for patients in the CFS 4–6 and CFS 7–9 groups, who more frequently underwent laparotomy. The existing literature suggests that the increased rate of pulmonary complications after laparoscopy is more evident in individuals with preexisting pulmonary conditions and also that emergency surgery is an independent predictor of pulmonary complications35,36. No significant difference was detected in terms of surgical complications for patients with no frailty compared with patients with mild to moderate frailty. Patients with severe frailty had significantly more surgical complications than non-frail patients. Mortality within 3, 7, 30, and 90 days was markedly increased in frail patients compared with non-frail patients.

Frailty, a prevalent condition among older individuals, is linked to a greater likelihood of unfavourable outcomes after MEAS, such as an increased risk of postoperative complications1,37–41. The underlying mechanism for this connection is multifaceted, probably involving an impaired healing process, immunosenescence, and reduced functional capacity42. However, most of the research in this area has focused on the elective setting, where patients undergo planned surgery after an interval of preparation39,43–45. Frailty is an independent predictor of postoperative mortality in various surgical populations, including patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery, cardiac surgery, and orthopaedic surgery14,15,46. In the emergency setting, there is some evidence supporting the findings in this study, including an increased overall rate of postoperative complications, especially short-term mortality47–51. These studies propose various factors contributing to this phenomenon, including limited time for preoperative optimization, heightened physiological stress, and constrained psychological resources in emergency settings.

The limitations of this study include that this study cannot definitively determine whether the observed connections between frailty and postoperative complications result from the presence of other health conditions in frail patients, the inherent nature of frailty as a stand-alone predictor of postoperative issues, or a combination of both factors. Furthermore, the risk of bias is an inherent limitation of a single-centre cohort and a short observational interval (<2 years). However, given the prospective design and the relatively large sample size in a large emergency facility, the data are believed to reflect a general tendency in patients undergoing MEAS.

This study highlights the importance of identifying and addressing frailty in the emergency department and might indicate the need for preoperative targeting and risk profiling of patients undergoing MEAS. This could potentially reduce the risk of intrahospital postoperative complications and improve overall quality of life for this patient group. Finally, this study underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between emergency medicine, surgical teams, and geriatric specialists. Further research is needed to explore interventions and strategies that can mitigate the risks associated with frailty in this population.

This study demonstrates that frailty significantly associates with a specific postoperative complication pattern after MEAS. Patients with frailty have a higher incidence of complications—notably medical complications—and increased mortality rates compared with non-frail patients.

Funding

The authors have no funding to declare.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data availability

The data that support the findings in this article are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

1

Cihoric
 
M
,
Toft Tengberg
 
L
,
Bay-Nielsen
 
M
,
Bang Foss
 
N
.
Prediction of outcome after emergency high-risk intra-abdominal surgery using the Surgical Apgar Score
.
Anesth Analg
 
2016
;
123
:
1516
–
1521

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
2

Tolstrup
 
MB
,
Watt
 
SK
,
Gögenur
 
I
.
Morbidity and mortality rates after emergency abdominal surgery: an analysis of 4346 patients scheduled for emergency laparotomy or laparoscopy
.
Langenbecks Arch Surg
 
2017
;
402
:
615
–
623

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
3

Tengberg
 
LT
,
Cihoric
 
M
,
Foss
 
NB
,
Bay-Nielsen
 
M
,
Gögenur
 
I
,
Henriksen
 
R
  et al.  
Complications after emergency laparotomy beyond the immediate postoperative period—a retrospective, observational cohort study of 1139 patients
.
Anaesthesia
 
2017
;
72
:
309
–
316

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
4

Ylimartimo
 
AT
,
Nurkkala
 
J
,
Koskela
 
M
,
Lahtinen
 
S
,
Kaakinen
 
T
,
Vakkala
 
M
  et al.  
Postoperative complications and outcome after emergency laparotomy: a retrospective study
.
World J Surg
 
2022
;
47
:
119
–
129

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
5

Gottesman
 
D
,
McIsaac
 
DI
.
Frailty and emergency surgery: identification and evidence-based care for vulnerable older adults
.
Anaesthesia
 
2022
;
77
:
1430
–
1438

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
6

Proietti
 
M
,
Cesari
 
M
.
Frailty: what is it?
 
Adv Exp Med Biol
 
2020
;
1216
:
1
–
7

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
7

Rockwood
 
K
,
Song
 
X
,
MacKnight
 
C
,
Bergman
 
H
,
Hogan
 
DB
,
McDowell
 
I
  et al.  
A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people
.
CMAJ
 
2005
;
173
:
489
–
495

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
8

Martin
 
FC
,
O’Halloran
 
AM
. Tools for assessing frailty in older people: general concepts. In:
Veronese
 
N
 (ed.),
Frailty and Cardiovascular Diseases: Research into an Elderly Population
.
Cham
:
Springer International Publishing
,
2020
,
9
–
19

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
9

Church
 
S
,
Rogers
 
E
,
Rockwood
 
K
,
Theou
 
O
.
A scoping review of the Clinical Frailty Scale
.
BMC Geriatr
 
2020
;
20
:
393

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
10

Perregaard
 
H
,
Tenma
 
J
,
Antonsen
 
J
,
Mynster
 
T
.
Mortality after abdominal emergency surgery in nonagenarians
.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
 
2021
;
47
:
485
–
492

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
11

Reisinger
 
KW
,
van Vugt
 
JLA
,
Tegels
 
JJW
,
Snijders
 
C
,
Hulsewé
 
KWE
,
Hoofwijk
 
AGM
  et al.  
Functional compromise reflected by sarcopenia, frailty, and nutritional depletion predicts adverse postoperative outcome after colorectal cancer surgery
.
Ann Surg
 
2015
;
261
:
345
–
352

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
12

Wagner
 
D
,
DeMarco
 
MM
,
Amini
 
N
,
Buttner
 
S
,
Segev
 
D
,
Gani
 
F
  et al.  
Role of frailty and sarcopenia in predicting outcomes among patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery
.
World J Gastrointest Surg
 
2016
;
8
:
27
–
40

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
13

Ornaghi
 
PI
,
Afferi
 
L
,
Antonelli
 
A
,
Cerruto
 
MA
,
Mordasini
 
L
,
Mattei
 
A
  et al.  
Frailty impact on postoperative complications and early mortality rates in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review.
 
Arab J Urol
 
2020
;
19
:
9
–
23

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
14

Dunne
 
MJ
,
Abah
 
U
,
Scarci
 
M
.
Frailty assessment in thoracic surgery.
 
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg
 
2014
;
18
:
667
–
670

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
15

Fagard
 
K
,
Leonard
 
S
,
Deschodt
 
M
,
Devriendt
 
E
,
Wolthuis
 
A
,
Prenen
 
H
  et al.  
The impact of frailty on postoperative outcomes in individuals aged 65 and over undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
 
J Geriatr Oncol
 
2016
;
7
:
479
–
491

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
16

Birkelbach
 
O
,
Mörgeli
 
R
,
Spies
 
C
,
Olbert
 
M
,
Weiss
 
B
,
Brauner
 
M
  et al.  
Routine frailty assessment predicts postoperative complications in elderly patients across surgical disciplines—a retrospective observational study.
 
BMC Anesthesiol
 
2019
;
19
:
204

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
17

Makary
 
MA
,
Segev
 
DL
,
Pronovost
 
PJ
,
Syin
 
D
,
Bandeen-Roche
 
K
,
Patel
 
P
  et al.  
Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients.
 
J Am Coll Surg
 
2010
;
210
:
901
–
908

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
18

Devoto
 
L
,
Celentano
 
V
,
Cohen
 
R
,
Khan
 
J
,
Chand
 
M
.
Colorectal cancer surgery in the very elderly patient: a systematic review of laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection.
 
Int J Colorectal Dis
 
2017
;
32
:
1237
–
1242

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
19

Carter
 
B
,
Law
 
J
,
Hewitt
 
J
,
Parmar
 
KL
,
Boyle
 
JM
,
Casey
 
P
  et al.  
Association between preadmission frailty and care level at discharge in older adults undergoing emergency laparotomy.
 
Br J Surg
 
2020
;
107
:
218
–
226

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
20

Kennedy
 
CA
,
Shipway
 
D
,
Barry
 
K
.
Frailty and emergency abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Surgeon
 
2021
;
20
:
e307
–
e314

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
21

Du
 
Y
,
Karvellas
 
CJ
,
Baracos
 
V
,
Williams
 
DC
,
Khadaroo
 
RG
;
Acute Care and Emergency Surgery (ACES) Group
.
Sarcopenia is a predictor of outcomes in very elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery
.
Surgery
 
2014
;
156
:
521
–
527

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
22

Trotter
 
J
,
Johnston
 
J
,
Ng
 
A
,
Gatt
 
M
,
MacFie
 
J
,
McNaught
 
C
.
Is sarcopenia a useful predictor of outcome in patients after emergency laparotomy? A study using the NELA database
.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl
 
2018
;
100
:
377
–
381

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
23

Hasselager
 
R
,
Gögenur
 
I
.
Core muscle size assessed by perioperative abdominal CT scan is related to mortality, postoperative complications, and hospitalization after major abdominal surgery: a systematic review
.
Langenbecks Arch Surg
 
2014
;
399
:
287
–
295

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
24

Cihoric
 
M
,
Tengberg
 
LT
,
Foss
 
NB
,
Gögenur
 
I
,
Tolstrup
 
M-B
,
Bay-Nielsen
 
M
.
Functional performance and 30-day postoperative mortality after emergency laparotomy—a retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of 1084 patients
.
Perioper Med (Lond)
 
2020
;
9
:
13

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
25

Kokotovic
 
D
,
Jensen
 
TK
.
Acute abdominal pain and emergency laparotomy: bundles of care to improve patient outcomes
.
Br J Surg
 
2023
;
110
:
1594
–
1596

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
26

Tolstrup
 
M-B
,
Jensen
 
TK
,
Gögenur
 
I
.
Intraoperative surgical strategy in abdominal emergency surgery
.
World J Surg
 
2023
;
47
:
162
–
170

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
27

Kokotovic
 
D
,
Burcharth
 
J
.
Enhanced recovery after emergency laparotomy
.
Br J Surg
 
2023
;
110
:
538
–
540

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
28

Harris
 
PA
,
Taylor
 
R
,
Minor
 
BL
,
Elliott
 
V
,
Fernandez
 
M
,
O’Neal
 
L
  et al.  
The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners
.
J Biomed Inform
 
2019
;
95
:
103208

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
29

Harris
 
PA
,
Taylor
 
R
,
Thielke
 
R
,
Payne
 
J
,
Gonzalez
 
N
,
Conde
 
JG
.
Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support
.
J Biomed Inform
 
2009
;
42
:
377
–
381

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
30

Cuschieri
 
S
.
The STROBE guidelines
.
Saudi J Anaesth
 
2019
;
13
:
S31
–
S34

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
31

Onyekwelu
 
I
,
Yakkanti
 
R
,
Protzer
 
L
,
Pinkston
 
CM
,
Tucker
 
C
,
Seligson
 
D
.
Surgical wound classification and surgical site infections in the orthopaedic patient
.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
 
2017
;
1
:
e022

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
32

Gong
 
S
,
Qian
 
D
,
Riazi
 
S
,
Chung
 
F
,
Englesakis
 
M
,
Li
 
Q
  et al.  
Association between the FRAIL scale and postoperative complications in older surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Anesth Analg
 
2023
;
136
:
251
–
261

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
33

Farhat
 
JS
,
Velanovich
 
V
,
Falvo
 
AJ
,
Horst
 
HM
,
Swartz
 
A
,
Patton
 
JH
  et al.  
Are the frail destined to fail? Frailty index as predictor of surgical morbidity and mortality in the elderly
.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg
 
2012
;
72
:
1526
–
1531
;
discussion 1530–1531

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
34

Lin
 
HS
,
Watts
 
JN
,
Peel
 
NM
,
Hubbard
 
RE
.
Frailty and post-operative outcomes in older surgical patients: a systematic review
.
BMC Geriatr
 
2016
;
16
:
157

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
35

Kim
 
TH
,
Lee
 
JS
,
Lee
 
SW
,
Oh
 
YM
.
Pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
.
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
 
2016
;
11
:
2785
–
2796

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
36

Celik
 
S
,
Yılmaz
 
EM
.
Effects of laparoscopic and conventional methods on lung functions in colorectal surgery
.
Med Sci Monit
 
2018
;
24
:
3244
–
3248

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
37

Sobol
 
JB
,
Gershengorn
 
HB
,
Wunsch
 
H
,
Li
 
G
.
The surgical Apgar score is strongly associated with intensive care unit admission after high-risk intraabdominal surgery
.
Anesth Analg
 
2013
;
117
:
438
–
446

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
38

Di Donato
 
V
,
Di Pinto
 
A
,
Giannini
 
A
,
Caruso
 
G
,
D’Oria
 
O
,
Tomao
 
F
  et al.  
Modified fragility index and surgical complexity score are able to predict postoperative morbidity and mortality after cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer
.
Gynecol Oncol
 
2021
;
161
:
4
–
10

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
39

Arya
 
S
,
Kim
 
SI
,
Duwayri
 
Y
,
Brewster
 
LP
,
Veeraswamy
 
R
,
Salam
 
A
  et al.  
Frailty increases the risk of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and failure to rescue after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair independent of age and comorbidities.
 
J Vasc Surg
 
2015
;
61
:
324
–
331

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
40

Parmar
 
KL
,
Pearce
 
L
,
Farrell
 
I
,
Hewitt
 
J
,
Moug
 
S
.
Influence of frailty in older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: a UK-based observational study.
 
BMJ Open
 
2017
;
7
:
e017928

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
41

Hewitt
 
J
,
McCormack
 
C
,
Tay
 
HS
,
Greig
 
M
,
Law
 
J
,
Tay
 
A
  et al.  
Prevalence of multimorbidity and its association with outcomes in older emergency general surgical patients: an observational study.
 
BMJ Open
 
2016
;
6
:
e010126

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
42

Dolenc
 
E
,
Rotar-Pavlič
 
D
.
Frailty assessment scales for the elderly and their application in primary care: a systematic literature review.
 
Zdr Varst
 
2019
;
58
:
91
–
100

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
43

Robinson
 
TN
,
Wu
 
DS
,
Stiegmann
 
GV
,
Moss
 
M
.
Frailty predicts increased hospital and six-month healthcare cost following colorectal surgery in older adults.
 
Am J Surg
 
2011
;
202
:
511
–
514

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
44

Mosquera
 
C
,
Spaniolas
 
K
,
Fitzgerald
 
TL
.
Impact of frailty on approach to colonic resection: laparoscopy vs open surgery.
 
World J Gastroenterol
 
2016
;
22
:
9544
–
9553

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
45

Ho
 
B
,
Lewis
 
A
,
Paz
 
IB
.
Laparoscopy can safely be performed in frail patients undergoing colon resection for cancer.
 
Am Surg
 
2017
;
83
:
1179
–
1183

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
46

Parker
 
SG
,
McCue
 
P
,
Phelps
 
K
,
McCleod
 
A
,
Arora
 
S
,
Nockels
 
K
  et al.  
What is Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA)? An umbrella review.
 
Age Ageing
 
2018
;
47
:
149
–
155

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
47

Leiner
 
T
,
Nemeth
 
D
,
Hegyi
 
P
,
Ocskay
 
K
,
Virag
 
M
,
Kiss
 
S
  et al.  
Frailty and emergency surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Front Med (Lausanne)
 
2022
;
9
:
811524

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
48

Collins
 
CE
,
Renshaw
 
S
,
Adib
 
M
,
Gupta
 
A
,
Rosenthal
 
R
.
Frailty in emergency general surgery: low-risk procedures pose similar risk as high-risk procedures for frail patients
.
Surgery
 
2023
;
173
:
485
–
491

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
49

Viswanath
 
M
,
Clinch
 
D
,
Ceresoli
 
M
,
Dhesi
 
J
,
D’Oria
 
M
,
De Simone
 
B
  et al.  
Perceptions and practices surrounding the perioperative management of frail emergency surgery patients: a WSES-endorsed cross-sectional qualitative survey
.
World J Emerg Surg
 
2023
;
18
:
7

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
50

Tian
 
BWCA
,
Stahel
 
PF
,
Picetti
 
E
,
Campanelli
 
G
,
Di Saverio
 
S
,
Moore
 
E
  et al.  
Assessing and managing frailty in emergency laparotomy: a WSES position paper
.
World J Emerg Surg
 
2023
;
18
:
38

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
51

Parmar
 
KL
,
Law
 
J
,
Carter
 
B
,
Hewitt
 
J
,
Boyle
 
JM
,
Casey
 
P
  et al.  
Frailty in older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: results from the UK observational Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty (ELF) study
.
Ann Surg
 
2021
;
273
:
709
–
718

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Topic:
Subject
General Surgery Acute Care Surgery
Issue Section:
Original Article
Download all slides