ReviewEuropean surgical research. Europaische chirurgische Forschung. Recherches chirurgicales europeennes2023
Implementation of the Surgical Apgar Score in Laboratory Animal Science: A Showcase Pilot Study in a Porcine Model and a Review of the Literature.
Review in European surgical research. Europaische chirurgische Forschung. Recherches chirurgicales europeennes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn an attempt to further improve surgical outcomes, a variety of outcome prediction and risk-assessment tools have been developed for the clinical setting. Risk scores such as the surgical Apgar score (SAS) hold promise to facilitate the objective assessment of perioperative risk related to comorbidities of the patients or the individual characteristics of the surgical procedure itself. Despite the large number of scoring models in clinical surgery, only very few of these models have ever been utilized in the setting of laboratory animal science. The SAS has been validated in various clinical surgical procedures and shown to be strongly associated with postoperative morbidity. In the present study, we aimed to review the clinical evidence supporting the use of the SAS system and performed a showcase pilot trial in a large animal model as the first implementation of a porcine-adapted SAS (pSAS) in an in vivo laboratory animal science setting.
methodsA literature review was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases. Study characteristics and results using the SAS were reported. For the in vivo study, 21 female German landrace pigs have been used either to study bleeding analogy (n = 9) or to apply pSAS after abdominal surgery in a kidney transplant model (n = 12). The SAS was calculated using 3 criteria: (1) estimated blood loss during surgery; (2) lowest mean arterial blood pressure; and (3) lowest heart rate.
resultsThe SAS has been verified to be an effective tool in numerous clinical studies of abdominal surgery, regardless of specialization confirming independence on the type of surgical field or the choice of surgery. Thresholds for blood loss assessment were species specifically adjusted to >700 mL = score 0; 700-400 mL = score 1; 400-55 mL score 2; and <55 mL = score 3 resulting in a species-specific pSAS for a more precise classification.
conclusionOur literature review demonstrates the feasibility and excellent performance of the SAS in various clinical settings. Within this pilot study, we could demonstrate the usefulness of the modified SAS (pSAS) in a porcine kidney transplantation model. The SAS has a potential to facilitate early veterinary intervention and drive the perioperative care in large animal models exemplified in a case study using pigs. Further larger studies are warranted to validate our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.