Predicting Complications in Head and Neck Surgery: Comparing Calculators to Surgeons

Author:

Landeen Kelly C.1ORCID,Vittetoe Kelly L.2,Smetak Miriam3ORCID,Gong Wu4ORCID,Lindsell Christopher J.4,Wood Carey Burton5,Bennett Marc2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

2. Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

3. Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

4. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

5. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Abstract

Objectives: Surgical outcomes determine national ranking, reputation, and funding, and are often assessed with objective surgical risk calculators (SRCs). Surgeons’ assessments are not considered. This study aims to determine if surgeons or SRCs are more accurate in predicting outcomes. Methods: This prospective cohort study identified a surgeon’s assessment on a patient’s risk preoperatively. The patient’s risk was also calculated using the SRC. Predictions were compared to patient outcomes and to each other to assess whether surgeons or the SRC were more accurate. Results: Of the 101 patients included, 37 (36.6%) experienced a complication of any kind and 18 (17.8%) experienced a serious complication. Smoking resulted in a 2.49 times higher overall complication rate ( P = .04). Laryngectomy patients experienced the highest rate of complications ( P = .02) compared to those undergoing free flap reconstruction [odds ratio (OR) 0.9] or any other surgery (OR 0.26). Both surgeons and the American College of Surgeons (ACS) tool performed poorly on the prediction of the outcome of any complication, with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) of 0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.62] and 0.58 (95% CI: 0.47-0.70), respectively, which was not statistically significant ( P = .34). For the prediction of the outcome of serious complication, the AUC for surgeons and the ACS tool were 0.55 (95% CI: 0.41-0.69) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.46-0.74), respectively, which was not statistically significant ( P = .58). Conclusions: Neither validated risk calculators nor surgeons are accurate in predicting perioperative risk. The only risk factor that contributes to improving predictions for complications is preoperative smoking, although age and type of surgery are also significant predictors. Risk calculators may therefore not be appropriate metrics for assessing hospital performance. These findings can help guide preoperative counseling and may help in the development of more accurate predictive tools as the healthcare field continues to incorporate artificial intelligence into surgical planning.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

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