ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Validation of the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator for patients with paraoesophageal hernias undergoing robotic repair.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) American College of Surgeons (ACS) risk calculator is a validated method of predicting postoperative complications that was recently updated to a machine-learning structure. The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy of this calculator in our institution on paraoesophageal hernia (PEH) repair.
methodProcedures performed between 2019 and 2023 were retrospectively collected regarding demographics, operative variables, and outcomes with a 30-day follow-up. Thirteen outcomes measured by NSQIP-ACS calculator were measured. Observed and predicted rates were compared by receiver operating curves (ROC) and length of stay was compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test.
resultsA total of 203 paraoesophageal hernia repairs on patients with a median age of 68 (IQR 61-75) and 70.9% (n = 144) predominantly female. The size of the paraoesophageal hernia (PEH) was large or giant in 59.1% (n = 120) and mesh was placed in 70.4% (n = 143). The predicted risk was consistently higher than observed events on all but discharge destinations. Eight outcomes had no event to measure; however, the calculator accurately predicted a risk of ≤ 1% on all of these. The area under the curve (AUC) was fair (0.6-0.79) on discharge to nursing or rehabilitation facilities and failed in the rest of the measurable outcomes.
conclusionThe ACS-NSQIP risk calculator correctly predicted a low occurrence of postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic paraoesophageal hernia repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576773What 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.