Frailty, quantified using the 5-item modified frailty index (mFI-5), has been shown to predict adverse outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. The utility in total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) patients is unclear. We evaluated if increasing frailty would correlate with worse postoperative outcomes.
Methods:
A retrospective assessment of patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program undergoing primary TEA was performed. The mFI-5 was calculated by assigning 1 point for each comorbidity (diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and functionally dependent health status). Poisson regression was used to evaluate mFI-5 scores on complications, length of stay (LOS), and adverse discharge. A significance threshold was at P < .05.
Results:
In total, 609 patients were included; 34.5% (n = 210) were not frail (mFI = 0), 44.0% (n = 268) were slightly frail (mFI = 1), and 21.5% (n = 131) were frail (mFI ≥ 2). As mFI score increased from 0 to ≥ 2, the following rates increased: any complication (9.0%-19.8%), major complication (11.0%-20.6%), cardiac complication (0.0%-2.3%), hematologic complication (3.3%-9.2%), adverse discharge (2.9%-22.9%), and LOS from 2.08 to 3.97 days (all P < .048). Following adjustment, Poisson regression demonstrated patients with a mFI ≥ 2 had increased risk of major complication (risk ratio [RR]: 2.13; P = .029), any complication (RR: 2.49; P = .032), Clavien-Dindo IV complication (RR: 5.53; P = .041), and adverse discharge (RR: 5.72; P < .001).
Conclusions:
Frailty is not only associated with longer hospitalizations, but more major complications and non-home discharge. The mFI-5 is a useful risk stratification that may assist in decision-making for TEA.
PatrickCMTadlockJCNestiLJ, et al. Treatment trends in distal humerus fractures between ABOS part II candidates. Injury. 2022;53:1044-1048. doi:10.1016/J.INJURY.2021.09.058.
2.
TripletJJKurowickiJMomohE, et al. Trends in total elbow arthroplasty in the Medicare population: a nationwide study of records from 2005 to 2012. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(11):1848-1853. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.021.
3.
ZhangDChenN. Total elbow arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2019;44(6):487-495. doi:10.1016/J.JHSA.2018.11.005.
4.
DeeR. Total replacement arthroplasty of the elbow for rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54(1):88-95. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.54b1.88.
5.
DeeRSweetnamDR. Total replacement arthroplasty of the elbow joint for rheumatoid arthritis: two cases. Proc R Soc Med. 1970;63(7):653-655. doi:10.1177/003591577006300701.
6.
SamdanisVManoharanGJordanRW, et al. Indications and outcome in total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review. Shoulder Elbow. 2020;12(5):353-361. doi:10.1177/1758573219873001.
7.
AlizadehkhaiyatOAl MandhariASinopidisC, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty: a prospective clinical outcome study of Discovery Elbow System with a 4-year mean follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(1):52-59. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.013.
8.
DaveyMSHurleyETGaafarM, et al. Long-term outcomes of total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review of studies at 10-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(6):1423-1430. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2020.11.014.
9.
EgidyCCCrossMBNamD, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty: outcomes driving the evolution of implant design. JBJS Rev. 2019;7(5):e8. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.18.00127.
10.
HildebrandKAPattersonSDReganWD, et al. Functional outcome of semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(10):1379-1386. doi:10.2106/00004623-200010000-00003.
11.
SchochBSWerthelJDSánchez-SoteloJ, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(8):1355-1359. doi:10.1016/J.JSE.2017.04.003.
12.
WelsinkCLLambersKTAVan DeurzenDFP, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. 2017;5(7):e4. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00089.
13.
DayJSLauEOngKL, et al. Prevalence and projections of total shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in the United States to 2015. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1115-1120. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.02.009.
14.
MalikATSridharanMBishopJY, et al. Current diagnosis-related group–based bundling for upper-extremity arthroplasty: a case of insufficient risk adjustment and misaligned incentives. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(8):e297-e305. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.12.029.
15.
KimJMMudgalCSKonopkaJF, et al. Complications of total elbow arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(6):328-339. doi:10.5435/00124635-201106000-00003.
16.
LovyAJKeswaniADowdellJ, et al. Outcomes, complications, utilization trends, and risk factors for primary and revision total elbow replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(6):1020-1026. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.012.
17.
AzizKTKreulenRTBestMJ, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes in patients undergoing elective total elbow arthroplasty versus total elbow arthroplasty for fracture. Semin Arthroplast JSES. 2021;31(2):272-277. doi:10.1053/J.SART.2020.12.006.
18.
XueQL. The frailty syndrome: definition and natural history. Clin Geriatr Med. 2011;27(1):1-15. doi:10.1016/j.cger.2010.08.009.
19.
VelanovichVAntoineHSwartzA, et al. Accumulating deficits model of frailty and postoperative mortality and morbidity: its application to a national database. J Surg Res. 2013;183(1):104-110. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.021.
20.
RockwoodKSongXMacKnightC, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173(5):489-495. doi:10.1503/CMAJ.050051.
21.
YiBCGowdAKAgarwallaA, et al. Efficacy of the modified Frailty Index and the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index in predicting complications in patients undergoing operative management of proximal humerus fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(3):658-667. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2020.06.014.
22.
FarhatJSVelanovichVFalvoAJ, et al. Are the frail destined to fail? Frailty index as predictor of surgical morbidity and mortality in the elderly. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(6):1526-1531. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182542fab.
23.
PanayiACOrkabyARSakthivelD, et al. Impact of frailty on outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2019;218(2):393-400. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.11.020.
24.
DuquetteSKusterREvansT, et al. Use of the Modified Frailty Index in the American College of Surgeons national surgical improvement program database: highlighting the problem of missing data. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(2):205-207. doi:10.1001/JAMASURG.2016.3479.
25.
SongXMacKnightCLattaR, et al. Frailty and survival of rural and urban seniors: results from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2013;19(2):145-153. doi:10.1007/BF03324681.
26.
KimSBrooksAKGrobanL. Preoperative assessment of the older surgical patient: honing in on geriatric syndromes. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;10:13-27. doi:10.2147/CIA.S75285.
27.
SubramaniamSAalbergJJSorianoRP, et al. New 5-factor modified frailty index using American College of Surgeons NSQIP Data. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226(2):173-181. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.11.005.
28.
WilsonJMHolzgrefeREStaleyCA, et al. Use of a 5-item modified frailty index for risk stratification in patients undergoing surgical management of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(8):701-709. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.05.029.
29.
HolzgrefeREWilsonJMStaleyCA, et al. Modified frailty index is an effective risk-stratification tool for patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(7):1232-1240. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.12.004.
30.
OndeckNTBohlDDBovonratwetP, et al. Predicting adverse outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists class, the Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index, and the Modified Frailty Index. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26(20):735-743. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00009.
31.
TravenSAReevesRASekarMG, et al. New 5-factor modified frailty index predicts morbidity and mortality in primary hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(1):140-144. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.040.
32.
BellamyJLRunnerRPVuCCL, et al. Modified frailty index is an effective risk assessment tool in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(10):2963-2968. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.056.
33.
RunnerRPBellamyJLVuCCL, et al. Modified frailty index is an effective risk assessment tool in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(9S):S177-S182. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.03.046.
34.
DindoDDemartinesNClavienPA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205-213. doi:10.1097/01.SLA.0000133083.54934.AE.
35.
SaltzmanEBEvansDRAnastasioA, et al. Use of a 5-item modified Fragility Index for risk stratification in patients undergoing surgical management of distal humerus fractures. JSES Int. 2021;5(6):1111-1118. doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.016.
36.
ZhouHOrvetsNDMerlinG, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty in the United States: evaluation of cost, patient demographics, and complication rates. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2016;8(1):43-46. doi:10.4081/OR.2016.6113.
