Cited by 543Frailty in Older AdultsCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesHip and Femur Fractures

Redefining Geriatric Preoperative Assessment Using Frailty, Disability and Co-Morbidity

Robinson, Thomas N., Eiseman, Ben, Wallace, Jeffrey I., Church, Skotti D., McFann, Kim K., Pfister, Shirley M., Sharp, Terra J., Moss, Marc·2009·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

Objectives (1) Determine the relationship of geriatric assessment markers to 6-month postoperative mortality in elderly patients. (2) Create a clinical prediction rule using geriatric markers from preoperative assessment. Background Geriatric surgery patients have unique physiologic vulnerability requiring preoperative assessment beyond the traditional evaluation of older adults. The constellation of frailty, disability and comorbidity predict poor outcomes in elderly hospitalized patients. Methods Prospectively, subjects > or =65 years undergoing a major operation requiring postoperative intensive care unit admission were enrolled. Preoperative geriatric assessments included: Mini-Cog Test (cognition), albumin, having fallen in the past 6-months, hematocrit, Katz Score (function), and Charlson Index (comorbidities). Outcome measures included 6-month mortality (primary) and postdischarge institutionalization (secondary). Results One hundred ten subjects (age 74 +/- 6 years) were studied. Six-month mortality was 15% (16/110). Preoperative markers related to 6-month mortality included: impaired cognition (P Conclusions Geriatric assessment markers for frailty, disability and comorbidity predict 6-month postoperative mortality and postdischarge institutionalization. The preoperative presence of > or =4 geriatric-specific markers has high sensitivity and specificity for 6-month mortality. Preoperative assessment using geriatric-specific markers is a substantial paradigm shift fro…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b45598

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, T. N., Eiseman, B., Wallace, J. I., Church, S. D., McFann, K. K., Pfister, S. M., Sharp, T. J., & Moss, M.
Affiliations
  • Denver VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Corresponding author
  • Robinson, Thomas N.
  • Eiseman, Ben
  • Church, Skotti D.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2009-09
Volume
250
Issue
3
Pages
449-455
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045810535
Cited by
543
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 35
FWCI
16.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K24HL089223)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip and Femur Fractures
Keywords
frailty, disability, comorbidities, postoperative mortality, older surgical patients, functional dependence, cognitive impairment, falls, albumin, anemia, clinical prediction rules, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Mini-Cog, Katz Index
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Geriatric Assessment, Comorbidity, Logistic Models, Frail Elderly

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review