Results
Figure 1 shows mean severity weights and standard errors generated from faculty responses. Mean (standard error) severity weight for UTI was 0.23% (0.08%); blood transfusion, 0.28% (0.09%); pneumonia, 0.55% (0.15%); hospital readmission, 0.59% (0.23%); wound dehiscence, 0.64% (0.17%); deep vein thrombosis, 0.64% (0.19%); superficial SSI, 0.68% (0.23%); return to operating room, 0.91% (0.29%); progressive renal insufficiency, 0.93% (0.27%); graft/prosthesis/flap failure, 1.20% (0.34%); unplanned intubation, 1.38% (0.53%); deep SSI, 1.45% (0.38%); failure to wean from ventilator, 1.45% (0.48%); organ/space SSI, 1.76% (0.46%); sepsis without shock, 1.77% (0.42%); peripheral nerve injury, 1.83% (0.47%); pulmonary embolism, 2.99% (0.76%); acute renal failure, 3.95% (0.85%); myocardial infarction, 4.16% (0.98%); septic shock, 7.17% (1.36%); stroke, 8.73% (1.74%); cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 9.97% (2.46%); and coma, 15.14% (3.04%).
Among ACS-NSQIP patients, mean SWORD ranged from 0.2% (elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion) to 6.0% (hip fracture surgery) (Figure 2).
Discussion
The use of national databases in studies has become increasingly common in orthopedic surgery.1-4
The academic orthopedic surgeons who participated in our severity-weighting exercise thought the various AEs have markedly different severities. The least severe AE (UTI) was considered 0.23% as severe as postoperative death, with other events spanning the range up to 15.14% as severe as death. This wide range of severities demonstrates the problem with composite outcomes that implicitly consider all AEs similarly severe. Use of these markedly disparate weights in the development of SWORD enables this outcome to be more clinically applicable than outcomes such as “any adverse events.”
SWORD was highly associated with procedure type both before and after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Among patients undergoing the highest SWORD procedure (hip fracture surgery), SWORD was also associated with age, sex, and 4 of 6 tested comorbidities. Together, our findings show how SWORD is intended to be used in studies: to identify demographic, comorbidity, and procedural risk factors for an adverse postoperative course. We propose that researchers use our weighted outcome as their primary outcome—it is more meaningful than the simpler composite outcomes commonly used.
Outside orthopedic surgery, a small series of studies has addressed severity weighting of postoperative AEs.25,28-30 However, their approach was very different, as they were not designed to generate weights that could be transferred to future studies; rather, they simply compared severities of postoperative courses for patients within each individual study. In each study, a review of each original patient record was required, as the severity of each patient’s postoperative course was characterized according to the degree of any postoperative intervention—from no intervention to minor interventions such as placement of an intravenous catheter and major interventions such as endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical procedures. Only after the degree of intervention was defined could an outcome score be assigned to a given patient. However, databases do not depict the degree of intervention with nearly enough detail for this type of approach; they typically identify only occurrence or nonoccurrence of each event. Our work, which arose independently from this body of literature, enables an entirely different type of analysis. SWORD, which is not based on degree of intervention but on perceived severity of an “average” event, enables direct application of severity weights to large databases that store simple information on occurrence and nonoccurrence of specific AEs.
This study had several limitations. Most significantly, the generated severity weights were based on the surgeons’ subjective perceptions of severity, not on definitive assessments of the impacts of specific AEs on actual patients. We did not query the specialists who treat the complications or who present data on the costs and disabilities that may arise from these AEs. In addition, to develop our severity weighting scale, we queried faculty at only 2 institutions. A survey of surgeons throughout the United States would be more representative and would minimize selection bias. This is a potential research area. Another limitation is that scoring was subjective, based on surgeons’ perceptions of patients—in contrast to the Global Burden of Disease project, in which severity was based more objectively on epidemiologic data from >150 countries.
Orthopedic database research itself has often-noted limitations, including inability to sufficiently control for confounders, potential inaccuracies in data coding, limited follow-up, and lack of orthopedic-specific outcomes.1-4,31-33 However, this research also has much to offer, has increased tremendously over the past several years, and is expected to continue to expand. Many of the limitations of database studies cannot be entirely reversed. In providing a system for weighting postoperative AEs, our study fills a methodologic void. Future studies in orthopedics may benefit from using the severity-weighted outcome score presented here. Other fields with growth in database research may consider using similar methods to create severity-weighting systems of their own.
Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E235-E243. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.