2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.12.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Frailty measured by risk analysis index and adverse discharge outcomes after adult spine deformity surgery: analysis of 3104 patients from a prospective surgical registry (2011–2020)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The revised RAI is a validated, quantitatively robust, frailty metric that has demonstrated superior discrimination across multiple neurosurgical subspecialties [ 15 - 18 ]. The RAI offers utility with its user-friendly calculation, which can be used at the point of care in clinical applications alongside large database studies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The revised RAI is a validated, quantitatively robust, frailty metric that has demonstrated superior discrimination across multiple neurosurgical subspecialties [ 15 - 18 ]. The RAI offers utility with its user-friendly calculation, which can be used at the point of care in clinical applications alongside large database studies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6,[11][12][13][14] It underscores the importance of using frailty assessment tools that are appropriate for the context and have been rigorously validated, such as the Risk Analysis Index, which has shown strong discriminatory accuracy in predicting surgical outcomes across various age groups. [15][16][17] The authors also present a brief comparison of frailty scores based on the 10 core principles defined in Table 4 that offers comparison for these tools. 6 However, a more comprehensive exposition is warranted, and a balanced comparison of the limitations inherent in both Risk Analysis Index and HFRS and other alternate risk scores should be undertaken to attain consensus within the field for a tool with most accurate predictability and better utilization across practice settings for risk-stratification and intervention decisions of our patients.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%