Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Can the Tilburg Frailty Indicator predict post-operative quality of recovery in patients with gynecologic cancer? A prospective cohort study
  1. Chunmei Liu1,
  2. Wei Gao2,
  3. Wenjun Meng2,
  4. Meng Ding1,
  5. Runsheng Huang2,
  6. Ya Xiao2,
  7. Ling Zhou2,
  8. Sheng Wang2 and
  9. Xin Wei1,2
  1. 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Anhui Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China
  2. 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Xin Wei; kekaiyuan628{at}126.com

Abstract

Objective Frailty is a marker of physiologic decline within multiple organ systems. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is an instrument for assessing frailty. We evaluated the ability of the TFI to predict the quality of post-operative recovery in patients with gynecologic cancer and explored the associations between frailty, post-operative complications, and length of stay.

Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients scheduled for radical gynecologic cancer surgery between May 2021 and January 2022, and defined a TFI score ≥5 as ‘frailty’. Our primary outcome was the post-operative quality of recovery based on the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15), and the secondary outcomes were post-operative complications and length of stay. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between frailty and outcomes. We developed receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and assessed areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) to explore the ability of frailty to predict the quality of post-operative recovery.

Results A total of 169 patients were included. The prevalence of frailty using the TFI was 47.9% in this cohort. In the multivariate regression analysis, frailty emerged as a significant predictor of the 3-day QoR-15 score (aOR 11.69, 95% CI 4.26 to 32.08; p˂0.001) and complications (aOR 10.05, 95% CI 1.66 to 60.72; p=0.012). Frailty was not associated with length of stay (aOR 2.12, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.16; p=0.099). The combination of the TFI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and types of cancer resulted in an increase in the AUC compared with the TFI alone (AUC 0.796, 95% CI 0.727 to 0.865; p˂0.05).

Conclusions The use of the TFI may assist surgeons in estimating the risk with respect to post-operative quality of recovery and complications in patients with gynecologic cancer. Combining the TFI with ASA classification and cancer type is expected to improve the predictive ability of poor quality of recovery.

  • Gynecology
  • Postoperative complications
  • Carcinoma
  • Quality of Life (PRO)/Palliative Care
  • Surgery

Data availability statement

In accordance with the journal’ s guidelines, we will provide our data for independent analysis by the Editorial Team for the purposes of additional data analysis or for the reproducibility of this study in other centers if such is requested. The original data is not made public.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

In accordance with the journal’ s guidelines, we will provide our data for independent analysis by the Editorial Team for the purposes of additional data analysis or for the reproducibility of this study in other centers if such is requested. The original data is not made public.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors The XW is responsible for the decision to submit for publication. CL: writing original draft and statistical analysis. XW: project administration, writing review and editing. WG: helped with methodology and statistical analysis. WM, MD, RH, YX: collected data. LZ, SW: helped with supervision and conceptualization.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.