Major surgery for metastatic bone disease is not a risk for 30-day mortality: a population-based study from Denmark
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Dokumenter
- Fulltext
Forlagets udgivne version, 614 KB, PDF-dokument
Patients and methods: A population-based cohort having EPR/IF for aBM in the Capital Region of Denmark 2014–2019 was retrospectively assessed. Intraoperative variables and patient demographics were evaluated for association with 30-day mortality by logistic regression analysis. Kaplan–Meier estimate was used to evaluate survival with no loss to follow-up.
Results: 437 patients had aBM surgery with EPR/IF. No parameters describing the magnitude of the surgical trauma (blood loss/duration of surgery/degree of bone resection) were associated with mortality. Overall 30-day survival was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 81–88). Univariate analysis identified ASA group 3+4, Karnofsky score < 70, fast-growth primary cancer, and visceral and multiple bone metastases as risk factors for 30-day mortality. Male sex (OR 2.8, CI 1.3–6.3), Karnofsky score < 70 (OR 4.2, CI 2.1–8.6), and multiple bone metastases (OR 3.4, CI 1.2–9.9) were independent prognostic factors for 30-day-mortality in multivariate analysis.
Conclusion: The parameters describing the surgical trauma were not associated with 30-day mortality but, instead, general health status and extent of primary cancer influenced survival post-surgery.
Originalsprog | Engelsk |
---|---|
Tidsskrift | Acta Orthopaedica |
Vol/bind | 94 |
Sider (fra-til) | 447-452 |
Antal sider | 6 |
ISSN | 1745-3674 |
DOI | |
Status | Udgivet - 2023 |
Eksternt udgivet | Ja |
Bibliografisk note
Funding Information:
The Danish Patient Safety Authority (3-3013-2820/1) and the Data Protection Agency of the Capital Region of Denmark (VD-2019-132) have approved the study. The Capital Region of Denmark waived the requirement for written informed consent, as this retrospective study did not involve patient contact; therefore, no separate permission from the Danish Nation Centre for Ethics was required, according to Danish legislation. Data is not publicly available but will be sent on request. The Research Fund at Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen (Rigshospitalets Forskningsfond), funded the study. The funders had no role in the design of the study, collection of data, analyses, interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Completed disclosure forms for this article following the ICMJE template are available on the article page. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.18394
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s).
ID: 396722088