Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective To determine whether frailty is associated with post-operative complications following surgery for vulvar cancer.
Methods This retrospective study used a multi-institutional dataset from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2014–2020) to analyze the relationship between frailty, procedure type, and post-operative complications. Frailty was determined using the modified frailty index-5 (mFI-5). Univariate and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed.
Results Of 886 women, 49.9% underwent radical vulvectomy alone, and 19.5% and 30.6% underwent concurrent unilateral or bilateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy, respectively; 24.5% had mFI ≥2 and were considered frail. Compared with non-frail women, those with an mFI ≥2 were more likely to have an unplanned readmission (12.9% vs 7.8%, p=0.02), wound disruption (8.3% vs 4.2%, p=0.02), and deep surgical site infection (3.7% vs 1.4%, p=0.04). On multivariable-adjusted models, frailty was a significant predictor for minor (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.30) and any complications (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.08). Specifically, for radical vulvectomy with bilateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy, frailty was significantly associated with major (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.40) and any complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.87).
Conclusion In this analysis of the NSQIP database, nearly 25% of women undergoing radical vulvectomy were considered frail. Frailty was associated with increased post-operative complications, especially in women concurrently undergoing bilateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy. Frailty screening prior to radical vulvectomy may assist in patient counseling and improve post-operative outcomes.
- Vulvar Neoplasms
- Postoperative complications
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Twitter @laurajmoulton
Contributors ML, AF, LC conceived and designed the analysis. AF, CM collected the data and performed the analysis, ML, LC and KB reviewed and validated analyses. The manuscript was prepared by ML, CM, AF and LC, with review and editing by ML, AF, KB and LC. ML, AF and LC are the guarantors.
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.