Postoperative cognitive function (POCD) has been subject to extensive research. In the literature, large differences are apparent in methodology such as the test batteries, the interval between sessions, the endpoints to be analysed, statistical methods, and how neuropsychological deficits are defined. Traditionally, intelligence tests or tests developed for clinical neuropsychology have been used. The tests for detecting POCD should be based on well-described sensitivity and suitability in relation to surgical patients. In tests using scores, floor/ceiling effects may compromise the evaluation if the tests are either too easy or to difficult. Uncontrolled testing facilities and change of test personnel may affect the test performance. Practice effects are pronounced in neuropsychological tests but have generally been ignored. The use of a suitable normative population is essential to allow correction for practice effects and variability between sessions. Missing follow-up may severely compromise valid conclusions since subjects unable or unwilling to be examined are particularly prone to suffer from POCD. In the statistical analysis of the test results, the evaluation should be based on differences between pre- and postoperative performance. Parametric statistical tests are not relevant unless the appropriate Gaussian distributions are present, perhaps after transformation of data. The definition of cognitive dysfunction should be restrictive and the criteria should be fulfilled in only a small proportion of volunteers. In the literature, these requirements often have not been fulfilled. This precludes a reasonable estimation of the incidence of POCD and the conclusions of comparative studies should be interpreted with great caution. In this review article, we present a number of recommendations for the design and execution of studies within this area. In addition, the critical reader may use these recommendations in the evaluation of the literature.
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction occurs frequently but resolves by 3 months after surgery. It may be associated with decreased activity during this period. Subjective report overestimates the incidence of POCD. Patients may be helped by recognition that the problem is genuine and reassured that it is likely to be transient.
A large, cross-sectional aging investigation of performance on the Stroop Color-Word Test (SCWT) was carried out. Subjects were 247 volunteers, ages 20-80 in seven age levels. Although all subjects thought themselves to be normal and healthy, a post hoc division could be made on the basis of biological life events (BLE). BLE are mild biological or environmental factors, such as repeated experiences of general anesthesia, that can hamper optimal brain functioning. Apart from the anticipated age effects, performance was poorer in subjects who had experienced one or more BLE: The slowing due to BLE was comparable to the effect of age, especially on the task involving language interference in color-naming. Education had a significant effect on performance: More highly educated subjects performed better than less educated subjects. No sex differences were observed. These findings replicate observations made with other tests in parallel studies. They are also in line with several other studies reporting interactions between the effects of aging and physical fitness. This study questions some of the validity of cognitive aging research, as our data suggest that screening for BLE as age-extrinsic factors in nondiseased subjects can reduce many of the performance deficits usually ascribed to aging per se.
Existing morbidity as a whole contributes only modestly (up to 3.5%) to total variance in cognitive function. However, some specific, relatively common diseases of the elderly, such as diabetes and chronic bronchitis, may aggravate the age-related decline in cognitive ability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.