BackgroundFrailty has been associated with an increased risk of adverse postoperative outcomes in elderly patients. We examined the impact of preoperative frailty on loss of functional independence following emergency abdominal surgery in the elderly.MethodsThis prospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary hospital, enrolling patients 65 years of age and above who underwent emergency abdominal surgery from June 2016 to February 2018. Premorbid variables, perioperative characteristics and outcomes were collected. Two frailty measures were compared in this study—the Modified Fried’s Frailty Criteria (mFFC) and Modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11). Patients were followed-up for 1 year.ResultsA total of 109 patients were prospectively recruited. At baseline, 101 (92.7%) were functionally independent, of whom seven (6.9%) had loss of independence at 1 year; 28 (25.7%) and 81 (74.3%) patients were frail and non-frail (by mFFC) respectively. On univariate analysis, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index and frailty (mFFC) (univariate OR 13.00, 95% CI 2.21–76.63, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with loss of functional independence at 1 year. However, frailty, as assessed by mFI-11, showed a weaker correlation than mFFC (univariate OR 4.42, 95% CI 0.84–23.12, p = 0.06). On multivariable analysis, only premorbid frailty (by mFFC) remained statistically significant (OR 15.63, 95% CI 2.12–111.11, p < 0.01).ConclusionsThe mFFC is useful for frailty screening amongst elderly patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery and is a predictor for loss of functional independence at 1 year. Including the risk of loss of functional independence in perioperative discussions with patients and caregivers is important for patient-centric emergency surgical care. Early recognition of this at-risk group could help with discharge planning and priority for post-discharge support should be considered.

No abstract

Background Personal mobility devices (PMDs) like skate-scooters, electric bicycles (e-bikes) or motorised scooters (e-scooters) have become widely available globally. There are several studies describing the rising incidence of injury from such devices. The aim of our study was to examine PMD user factors between motorised (MotPMDs) vs non-motorised PMDs (NonPMDs) as risk factors for severe injury and the need for hospital admission. Methods We analysed de-identified National Trauma Registry data (2015 to 2017) from all public sector hospitals in Singapore for patients aged 12 and above presenting to emergency departments with PMD-related injuries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for the primary outcome of interest (higher injury severity, defined as Injury Severity Score / ISS > =9), and the secondary outcome of interest (need for hospital admission). Additional subgroup analysis was conducted comparing only scooters (manual vs electric), the most common sub-type of PMD in our study. Results Of the 614 patients in our study, majority were male (74%), median age 33 years, with 136 (22%) sustaining injuries with ISS > =9; 185 (30%) admitted [median stay length 3 days (IQR: 1–6)] and 93 (15%) required surgery. MotPMDs were more common (480, 78%), with e-scooters being the most common motorised device (393, 64%). There were 6 deaths, all in MotPMD users. On both univariate and multivariable regression, MotPMD users [OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.51–12.9, p = 0.01] and older users (> = 60 years) [OR 9.47, 95% CI 2.45–62.9, p = 0.004] were more likely to sustain injuries with ISS > =9, and more likely to need admission (MotPMD users [OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.04–3.29, p = 0.045], age > =60 years [OR 4.72, 95% CI 1.86–13.0, p = 0.002]). Conclusion MotPMDs tripled the risk of severe injury and doubled the risk of requiring hospitalisation, compared to NonPMDs, likely due to higher travelling speeds. Increased age was also associated with severe injury and requiring hospitalisation.