Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in International Journal of Surgery 2024CC BY-SA 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes of older patients undergoing enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery: a prospective cohort study

Cohort study first published in International Journal of Surgery (2024), reprinted in full under its CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.

Shuai-Kang Wang1, Qi-Jun Wang1, Peng Wang1, Xiang-Yu Li1, Peng Cui1, Dong-Fan Wang1, Xiao-Long Chen1*, Chao Kong1*, Shi-Bao Lu1*

1Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University; National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, People’s Republic of China*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 22 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: International Journal of Surgery 2024Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageCohort study first published in International Journal of Surgery (2024), reprinted in full under its CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.

Cohort study first published in International Journal of Surgery (2024), reprinted in full under its CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

Background

Frailty is recognized as a surrogate for physiological age and has been established as a valid and independent predictor of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and complications. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) can enhance surgical safety by minimizing stress responses in frail patients, enabling surgeons to discharge patients earlier. However, the question of whether and to what extent the frailty impacts the post-ERAS outcomes in older patients remains.

Materials and methods

An evidence-based ERAS program was implemented in our center from January 2019. This is a prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥75 years who underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spine disease from April 2019 to October 2021. Frailty was assessed with the Fried frailty scale (FP scale), and patients were categorized as non/prefrail (FP 0-2) or frail (FP ≥ 3). The preoperative variables, operative data, postoperative outcomes, and follow-up information were compared between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for 90-day major complications and prolonged length of hospital stay after surgery.

Results

A total of 245 patients (age of 79.8±3.4 year) who had a preoperative FP score recorded and underwent scheduled TLIF surgery were included in the final analysis. Comparisons between nonfrail and prefrail/frail patients revealed no significant difference in age, sex, and surgery-related variables. Even after adjusting for multiple comparisons, the association between Fried frailty and ADL-dependency, IADL-dependency, and malnutrition remained significant. Preoperative frailty was associated with increased rates of postoperative adverse events. A higher CCI grade was an independent predictor for 90-day major complications, while Fried frailty and MNA-SF scores <12 were predictive of poor postoperative recovery.

Conclusion

Frail older patients had more adverse post-ERAS outcomes after TLIF compared to non/prefrail older patients. Continued research and multidisciplinary collaboration will be essential to refine and optimize protocols for surgical care in frail older adults.

Keywords: enhanced recovery after surgery; frailty; lumbar fusion; oldest-old patients; risk factors

Introduction

  • This is the first study to correlate the Fried frailty with poor postoperative recovery after lumbar fusion surgery.
  • The association between Fried frailty and impaired activities of daily living, impaired instrumental activities of daily living-dependency, and malnutrition remained significant even after adjusting for multiple comparisons.
  • Fried frailty was associated with increased major adverse events rates following scheduled transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery in postenhanced recovery after surgery patients aged ≥75 years.
  • Fried frailty and malnutrition were independent predictors for poor postoperative recovery.

Degenerative lumbar disorders involve a spectrum of pathology, including lumbar intervertebral disk degeneration, facet joint degeneration, ligamentum flavum thickening, and hyperosteogeny, often resulting in low back pain and/or radiculopathy1. The burden of lumbar spinal disorders has increased substantially with the unprecedented aging population and the increase in life expectancy, affecting about 40% of older adults aged 65 years and older in the US2–4. Surgical fusion has become one of the most performed procedures for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. In 2015, the hospital costs for elective lumbar degenerative fusions exceeded $10 billion, the highest aggregate costs of any surgical procedure in the US5. Recent studies using multicenter data have shown that the increase in spinal fusion for lumbar spinal degenerative diseases was highest among patients aged over 75 years6,7. Although lumbar fusion surgery can effectively alleviate pain-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the high incidence of postoperative adverse outcomes in older patients remains a global challenge8. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary, perioperative management pathway that aims to reduce surgery-related stress response and accelerate postoperative rehabilitation. Since Kehlet and Wilmore first proposed the concept of fast-track surgery, ERAS has been successfully applied in many surgical fields, such as gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic surgery, and ERAS has achieved considerable results9. Evidence-based standardization of perioperative management of lumbar fusion patients by implementing ERAS protocols can lead to improved outcomes, including shorter hospital stay, fewer complications, and lower mortality rates10. Nevertheless, age remains a significant risk factor for postoperative adverse events (AEs) even with the implementation of ERAS protocol (Post-ERAS), possibly due to the lower adherence to ERAS regimens, diminished physiological reserves, and potential impairment of organ functions11,12.

In addition to the comorbid risk factors that older patients share with younger ones, older patients may also have malnutrition and cognitive or functional impairment, which manifest as frailty. Frailty is the constellation of generalized organ and tissue atrophy, reduced physiological, physical, and cognitive reserves, deconditioning, sarcopenia, and malnutrition13. Symptomatic lumbar degenerative disorders are associated with a high prevalence and/or incidence of frailty in community-dwelling elderly persons. In a case–control study, approximately half of the participants with lumbar spinal disorders were frail14. Recognized as a surrogate for physiological age, frailty has been established as a valid and independent predictor of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and complications. Two of the most common instruments to assess frailty are the frailty index (FI)15 and the frailty phenotype (FP) developed by Fried et al.16. The FP scale is a validated instrument that captures the physiological and functional decline of the body over time, and it is extensively utilized in clinical practice for frailty screening. Fried frailty criteria include more objective and modifiable items (e.g. body weight and grip strength) than other frailty assessment instruments. Therefore, the Fried FP might be the most appropriate instrument for guiding antifrailty treatment (e.g. multicomponent exercise and prerehabilitation).

ERAS can enhance surgical safety by minimizing stress responses in frail patients, enabling surgeons to discharge patients earlier10,17. However, the question of whether and to what extent the frailty impacts the post-ERAS outcomes in older patients remains. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of frailty, as determined by the FP scale, on post-ERAS outcomes, including length of hospital stay (LOS), nonhome discharge, and 90-day readmissions in older patients (aged 75 years and above) undergoing lumbar fusion surgery.

Materials and methods

Participants

The protocol for this prospective cohort study was registered as a Chinese clinical trial and received approval from the regional medical ethics committee (IRB#2018-086). The work has been reported in line with the strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies in surgery (STROCSS) criteria18. Patients aged ≥75 years who were scheduled to undergo lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease were included in the study. Patients with fractures, spine metastasis, and spinal infections were excluded from the study. Patients who were admitted from the emergency department for an emergency operation were also excluded. Written consent was obtained from all participants. All participants were enrolled from April 2019 to October 2021 and were followed for at least 2 years. After geriatric and surgical risk assessment, all participants underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) performed by the same surgical team.

ERAS program

The ERAS program consisted of preadmission and perioperative multimodal management and was implemented by the orthopedic department in January 2019. Our ERAS program includes preadmission education and consultation, risk screening and optimization, multimodal analgesia, minimal intravenous fluid administration, pre-emptive analgesia, early removal of urinary tube, early physical rehabilitation, avoiding mechanical bowel preparation, no prolonged fasting, nutritional management, and antithrombotic prophylaxis (Fig.1). The detailed pathway of ERAS has been previously reported19.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in our center.

Data collection

All data were extracted from the medical record and the electronic inpatients medical record system. Preoperative baseline data included demographic characteristics, smoking status, drinking status, primary diagnosis, duration of symptoms (based on self-reported duration of symptoms prior to surgical intervention), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), geriatric assessment results, pain levels [measured by visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index]. Preoperative smoking status was classified as ‘never smoking’, ‘former smoking (stopping smoking for more than 1 year)’, and ‘current smoking’. Drinking status was classified into three groups: never drinking, quit drinking (more than 1 year), and current drinking. Surgery-related variables were also reviewed and collected. Preoperative geriatric assessment included frailty (Fried frailty phenotype)16, activities of daily living (ADL)20, instrumental ADL (IADL)21, mini-mental state examination22, and mini-nutritional assessment-short form (MNA-SF)23. Considering the difference in the body size between Western and Asian populations, frailty was assessed using the frailty phenotype by Fried and colleagues, with the criteria for the FP adapted from Wu’s research on frailty within the Chinese population24. The thresholds for assessing cognition by education level have been defined as follows: illiterate, >17 points; primary school, >20 points; and junior high school and above, >24 points25. A description of preoperative assessment tools and their corresponding cutoff values are displayed in Table 1. All patients were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team that consisted of surgeons, geriatrics, neurology, pharmacy, nutrition, nursing, and rehabilitation. Preoperative assessment was conducted within 2 days after admission.

Table 1. Description of preoperative assessment tools and their corresponding cut-off values.
ToolsDescription of the assessment scalesCut-off values
Fried frailty phenotype5-item tool to assess physical frailty phenotype involving five criteria: weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, and weakness1–2 points for prefrailty; 3–5 points for frailty
Activities of daily living (ADL)10-item tool to assess basic activities of daily living≤20 points for extremely severe; 25–45 points for severe; 50–70 points for moderate; 75–95 points for mild dependency (0–100)
Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL)8-item tool to assess complex activities of daily living needed to live independently≤2 points for extremely severe; 3 points for severe; 4 or 5 points for moderate dependency; 6 or 7 points for mild dependency (0–8)
Mini-nutritional assessment-short form6-item tool to identify patients with malnutrition or at risk of malnutrition<12 points (0–14 points)
Mini-mental state examination (MMSE)11-item test that includes registration, attention and calculation, recall, language, and orientation24 points (junior high school and above)
20 points (primary school)
17 points (illiterate)

Outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the incidence of overall postoperative AEs including prolonged LOS, nonhome discharge, unplanned readmission, and postoperative complications within 90 days. The discharge criteria for all patients were as follows: (1) preoperative symptoms were entirely or mainly relieved, or treatment met the patient’s expectations; (2) patients had no surgery-related complications, or the postoperative complications had been controlled, and (3) no further treatment was required. The LOS was recorded routinely by hospital administrative staff unaware of the study, and extracted from the hospital’s electronic patient record by a research nurse. Prolonged LOS was defined as postoperative hospital stay longer than the 75th percentile. Nonhome discharge was categorized as discharge to a nursing home/long-term care facility, or rehabilitation center. Other AEs were recorded by an unblinded research nurse using predefined criteria for the presence or absence of 90-day complications and readmission according to the clinical record, medication record, and follow-up data. Postoperative complications were graded by using the Clavien–Dindo grading system for the classification of postoperative adverse outcomes. Clavien–Dindo I–II complications were defined as minor complications, while Clavien–Dindo III–IV complications were defined as major complications26. Secondary outcome measures were the incidences of major AEs and minor AEs.

Statistical analysis

Before patient enrollment, a sample-size calculation was performed using the Pwr package (R Project for Statistical Computing Version 4.3.2, Base Package). The sample size requirement for this trial was calculated based on the following historical data and assumptions. The primary outcome of our study was the incidence of postoperative AEs. Previous studies showed that the AEs rates for frail patients and nonfrail/prefrail patients with lumbar fusion surgery are about 35 and 19%, respectively27,28. Based on findings from previous literature and the observed positive correlation between advanced age and frailty, we anticipated that 50% of eligible older patients would exhibit frailty14. The minimum sample size of 238 was calculated as an adequate sample required to perform the study, assuming a significance level of 95% (α=0.05) and statistical power (1–β) of 80%. To allow for a 5% dropout rate, 250 patients were planned for inclusion.

Normality testing was performed by the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality and normal Q–Q plots. Normally and non-normally distributed data were presented as mean ± SD and median (quartile 1, quartile 3), respectively. Two-group comparisons were performed using the t-test for independent normally-distributed data, Wilcoxon test for dependent not-normally-distributed data, and Mann–Whitney U test for independent not-normally-distributed data. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies with percentages and analyzed using Fisher’s exact and χ 2 tests, as appropriate. The primary outcome of our study was the incidence of overall AEs. The secondary outcomes were each component of the primary efficacy outcome, including major and minor AEs. A post-hoc Bonferroni calculation was made for reference purposes to derive an adjusted threshold for P-values to account for multiple comparisons of secondary outcomes. Factors with a P-value of less than 0.1 in the univariate analysis were entered in the multivariate logistic regression, and P-values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. The package of Corrplot in R was used for the correlation analysis based on Spearman’s correlation method. Subsequently, P-values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction. All analyses were completed using R version 4.3.2 and SPSS version 24 (SPSS, Version 24; IBM).

Results

From April 2019 to October 2021, 245 patients had a preoperative FP score and a subsequent TLIF surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders (Fig. 2). The mean age of patients was 79.8±3.4, and 62.5% were female. Based on previous work, FP scores were categorized as nonfrail (0 points), prefrail (1–2 points), and frail (3–5 points). In this study cohort, 25 individuals (10.2%) were categorized as nonfrail (score 0), 96 (39.2%) as prefrail (score 1–2), and 124 (50.6%) as frail (score ≥3). Due to the data distribution, all scores were dichotomized with a cutoff at 3 into either ‘nonfrail/prefrail’ or ‘frail’. Comparisons between nonfrail and prefrail/frail patients revealed no significant difference in age, sex, and surgery-related variables. There were no significant differences in smoking and drinking status, primary diagnosis, or symptom duration between nonfrail and prefrail/frail patients (Table 2). The correlation matrix in Figure 3 summarizes the correlations among the geriatric assessment tools. Even after adjusting for multiple comparisons, the association between Fried frailty and ADL-dependency, IADL-dependency, and malnutrition remained significant (P<0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were significantly higher rates of overall AEs (52.4 vs. 34.7%, P=0.005), major AEs (17.7 vs. 7.4%, P=0.016), minor AEs (48.4 vs. 31.4%, P=0.007) among frail patients. At the time of the final follow-up, patients in both groups saw significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes compared to the preoperative state (Fig. 4) (Table 3).

Figure 2
Figure 2. Flow chart describing of the inclusion of individuals.
Table 2. Comparison of patient characteristics and surgery-related data between nonfrail/prefrail and frail patients.
VariableTotalNonfrail/prefrailFrailP
No. of patients245121124
Female n/(%)153 (62.5%)74 (61.2%)79 (63.7%)0.680
Age (years)79.8±3.479.7±3.279.9±3.60.712
BMI (kg/m2)24.8±3.624.6±3.425.0±3.70.338
Charlson comorbidity index0.010*
0–1148 (60.4%)83 (66.1%)65 (52.4%)
2 or more97 (39.6%)38 (33.9%)59 (47.6%)
Current smoking23 (9.4%)12 (9.9%)11 (8.9%)0.779
Current drinking14 (5.7%)5 (4.1%)9 (7.2%)0.292
Dependence in ADL<0.001*
No44 (17.9%)31 (25.6%)13 (10.5%)
Mild140 (57.2%)73 (60.3%)67 (54.0%)
Moderate-severe61 (24.9%)17 (14.1%)44 (35.5%)
Dependence in IADL<0.001*
No51 (20.8%)41 (33.9%)10 (8.1%)
Mild70 (28.6%)37 (30.6%)33 (26.6%)
Moderate-severe124 (50.6%)43 (35.5%)81 (65.3%)
MNA-SF < 12 points63 (25.7%)18 (14.9%)45 (36.3%)<0.001*
MMSE< 24 points173 (70.6%)87 (71.9%)86 (69.4%)0.662
Primary diagnosis0.307
LSS146 (59.6%)76 (62.8%)70 (56.5%)
DDD59 (24.1%)24 (19.8%)35 (28.2%)
Lumbar spondylolisthesis40 (16.3%)21 (17.4%)19 (15.3%)
Duration of symptoms (years)5.9 ± 7.36.3 ± 7.85.6 ± 6.90.403
VAS-back at baseline4.6 ± 2.34.3 ± 2.24.9 ± 2.40.037*
VAS-leg at baseline6.7 ± 1.76.6 ± 1.76.7 ± 1.60.701
ODI at baseline48.6 ± 18.247.3 ± 18.449.8 ± 18.10.295
Surgery-related data
ASA2.7 ± 0.52.7 ± 0.52.8 ± 0.50.311
Number of fused segments0.461
1-2177 (72.2%)90 (74.4%)87 (70.2%)
3-568 (27.8%)31 (25.6%)37 (29.8%)
Operative time (min)
1-2 level fusion195.8 ± 58.9192.2 ± 64.2199.5 ± 53.00.413
3-5 level fusion276.9 ± 74.3282.5 ± 81.3272.3 ± 68.60.576
Estimated blood loss (ml)367.6 ± 354.5363.7 ± 330.9371.3 ± 377.40.868

ADL, activities of daily living; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; DDD, degenerative disc disease; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; LSS, lumbar spine stenosis; MMSE, mini-mental state examination; MNA-SF, mini-nutritional assessment-short form; ODI, Oswestry Dability Index; VAS, visual analog scale.

* Represents for statistically different (P<0.05).

Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlations among the geriatric assessment tools in this study. Red indicates a negative correlation, and blue indicates a positive correlation. The darker the color meant the stronger correlation between the two indicators, while the lighter meant the weaker correlation. Bonferroni corrected P-values shown in upper right triangle; uncorrected P-values shown in lower left triangle. ADL, activities of daily living; CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MNA-SF, mini-nutritional assessment-short form index; MMSE, mini-mental state examination.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale scores between non/prefrail and frail group. VAS, visual analog scale.
Table 3. Postoperative outcomes of patients in nonfrail/prefrail and frail groups.
VariablesNonfrail/prefrailFrailP
No. of patients121124
Primary outcomes
Total AEs42 (34.7%)65 (52.4%)0.005
Secondary outcomes
Major AEs9 (7.4%)22 (17.7%)0.015*
Major complications9 (7.4%)21 (16.9%)
Unplanned readmission4 (3.3%)10 (8.1%)
Reoperation5 (4.1%)2 (1.6%)
Minor AEs38 (31.4%)60 (48.4%)0.007*
Prolonged LOS21 (17.4%)40 (32.3%)
Minor complications21 (17.4%)24 (19.4%)
Nonhome discharge5 (4.1%)14 (11.3%)
LOS (day)14 (12,18)16 (13,21)

AEs, adverse events; LOS, length of hospital stay.

* Post-hoc correction for multiple testing of two secondary outcomes by the Bonferroni method resulted in a P-value of 0.025 to indicate a significant difference between groups.

Univariate and multivariate analysis identified multiple risk factors for prolonged LOS and 90-day major complications. Univariate analysis showed that frailty and greater CCI grade were significantly associated with 90-day major complications; however, multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that greater CCI grade [odd ratio (OR) 2.29; 95% CI: 1.04-5.08] was the only independent risk factor for major complications (Table 4). Univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that Fried frailty (OR 1.97; 95% CI: 1.03–3.78, P=0.041), MNA-SF <12 points (OR 1.94; 95% CI: 1.01–3.93; P= 0.46), and fused level ≥3 (OR 3.69; 95% CI: 1.93–7.07; P=0.001) were independently associated with prolonged LOS (Table 5).

Table 4. Risk factors for postoperative major complications by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis.
Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Risk factorsPNo (215)Yes (30)POdds ratio (95% CI)
Female n/(%)0.611133 (61.9%)20 (66.7%)
Age (years)0.16779.9±3.479.0±3.5
BMI (kg/m2)0.73924.8±3.525.0±3.9
Charlson comorbidity index0.015*
0–1136 (63.2%)12 (40.0%)0.040*2.29 (1.04–5.08)
2 or more79 (36.8%)18 (60.0%)
Current smoking0.99920 (9.3%)3 (10.0%)
Current drinking0.99912 (5.6%)2 (6.7%)
Frailty0.023*103 (47.9%)21 (70.0%)0.0592.24 (0.97–5.18)
Dependence in ADL0.779
No40 (18.6%)4 (13.3%)
Mild122 (56.7%)18 (60.0%)
Moderate-severe53 (24.7%)8 (26.7%)
Dependence in IADL0.757
No46 (21.4%)5 (16.7%)
Mild60 (27.9%)10 (33.3%)
Moderate-severe109 (50.7%)15 (50.0%)
MNA-SF <12 points0.56654 (25.1%)9 (30.0%)
MMSE <24 points0.727151 (70.2%)22 (73.3%)
Diagnosis0.871
LSS127 (59.1%)19 (63.3%)
DDD52 (24.2%)7 (23.3%)
Lumbar spondylolisthesis36 (16.7%)4 (13.3%)
Duration of symptoms (years)0.2505.7±7.17.4±9.2
VAS-back at baseline0.2694.6±2.35.1±2.2
VAS-leg at baseline0.6226.7±1.76.8±1.3
ODI at baseline0.16247.9±18.652.9±15.1
Surgery-related data
ASA0.5422.7±0.52.7±0.5
Number of fused segments0.769
1–2156 (72.6%)21 (70.0%)
3–559 (27.4%)9 (30.0%)
Operative time (min)
1–2 level fusion0.354194.3±58.4207.0±63.3
3–5 level fusion0.292273.2±76.1301.4±58.7
Estimated blood loss (ml)0.261377.1±360.8299.3±302.4

ADL, activities of daily living; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; DDD, degenerative disc disease; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; LSS, lumbar spine stenosis; MMSE, mini-mental state examination; MNA-SF, mini-nutritional assessment-short form; ODI, Oswestry Dability Index; VAS, visual analog scale.

* Represents for statistically different (P<0.05).

Table 5. Risk factors for prolonged length of hospital stay by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis.
Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Risk factorsPNo (184)Yes (61)POdds ratio (95% CI)
Female n/(%)0.072109 (59.2%)44 (72.1%)0.2380.66 (0.33–1.32)
Age (y)0.09579.6±3.480.4±3.30.1011.08 (0.99–1.18)
BMI (kg/m2)0.23524.6±3.625.3±3.6
Charlson comorbidity index0.389
0 or 1114 (61.9%)34 (55.7%)
2 or more70 (38.1%)27 (44.3%)
Current smoking0.38219 (10.3%)4 (6.6%)
Current drinking0.99911 (5.9%)3 (4.9%)
Frailty0.007*84 (45.7%)40 (65.6%)0.041*1.97 (1.03–3.78)
Dependence in ADL0.136
No35 (19.0%)9 (14.8%)
Mild109 (59.2%)31 (50.8%)
Moderate-severe40 (21.8%)21 (34.4%)
Dependence in IADL0.336
No42 (22.8%)9 (14.8%)
Mild53 (28.8%)17 (27.9%)
Moderate-severe89 (48.4%)35 (57.4%)
MNA-SF <12 points0.005*39 (21.2%)24 (39.3%)0.046*1.94 (1.01–3.93)
MMSE <24 points0.203126 (68.5%)47 (77.1%)
Diagnosis0.477
LSS112 (60.9%)34 (55.7%)
DDD45 (24.5%)14 (23.0%)
Lumbar spondylolisthesis27 (14.6%)13 (21.3%)
Duration of symptoms (years)0.3796.2±7.65.2±6.5
VAS-back at baseline0.1504.5±2.25.0±2.5
VAS-leg at baseline0.4046.7±1.66.5±1.8
ODI at baseline0.05747.3±18.452.4±17.40.2851.01 (0.99–1.03)
Surgery-related data
ASA0.7522.7±0.52.74±0.4
Number of fused segments<0.001*
1–2146 (79.4%)31 (50.8%)
3–538 (20.6%)30 (49.2%)0.001*3.69 (1.93–7.07)
Operative time (min)
1–2 level fusion0.115191.8±59.5207.9±56.3
3–5 level fusion0.612274.8±73.1286.9±81.9
Estimated blood loss (ml)0.865369.8±361.3360.8±335.9

ADL, activities of daily living; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; DDD, degenerative disc disease; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; LSS, lumbar spine stenosis; MMSE, mini-mental state examination; MNA-SF, mini-nutritional assessment-short form; ODI, Oswestry Dability Index; VAS, visual analog scale.

* Represents for statistically different (P<0.05).

Discussion

Through implementing ERAS protocols, patients undergoing lumbar fusion often experience accelerated recovery, typically accompanied by lower morbidity and mortality rates29. With an increasing number of oldest-old patients, the value of implementing ERAS protocols in the frail patients, particularly those aged 75 years and above, has been questioned11,30. This prospective study examined the association between Fried frailty and post-ERAS outcomes in older patients undergoing scheduled TLIF surgery. Our findings suggest that Fried frailty, MNA-SF <12 points, and fused level ≥3 were independent predictors for increased length of stay, while CCI ≥2 was the sole predictor of 90-day major complications.

Frailty is characterized by age-related conditions leading to decreased energy and muscle strength, weight loss, malnutrition, and reduced mobility, thus increasing an individual’s vulnerability to dependency or death13. In our study cohort, 124 (50.6%) patients were frail, which is more than in previous studies17,31. The prevalence of frailty and prefrailty increased with age with peak prevalence in the oldest age group32. We did not find an association between Fried frailty and greater age, possibly because of our selection criteria. We included only patients 75 and older and excluded patients with inoperable disease. However, the association between greater age and impaired ADL remained in the older population with lumbar spinal disorders. This observation suggests that the relationship between age and ADL, as well as IADL, is relatively stable and less influenced by the diverse characteristics of the study sample. Malnutrition, muscle weakness, and comorbidities are important risk factors and key evaluation indicators of frailty32. Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalized skeletal muscle disorder that involves the accelerated loss of muscle mass and function that is associated with functional decline and impaired activities of daily living (ADL)33. Our correlation analysis revealed a significant association between frailty and impaired activities of daily living, as well as malnutrition. This finding provides some support for the implementation of multimodal antifrailty intervention, including nutritional support, chronic diseases management, and physical intervention.

The prevalence of frailty is increasing among individuals with lumbar spinal disorders, primarily driven by a decline in mobility and an increase in dependence on daily activities34. Frailty assessment is a useful preoperative risk screening instrument, particularly in the context of an aging population, and its significance is rapidly growing. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 studies on patients undergoing spinal surgery revealed that preoperative frailty was associated with a two-fold more significant risk of mortality, prolonged LOS, major complications, and two-fold more significant risk of nonhome discharge35. Although many instruments such as clinical frailty scales, FRAIL questionnaire, Modified Frailty Index (mFI), and Edmonton Frailty Scale have been developed in recent years, the mFI and Fried Frailty Scale remain the most frequently employed tools in clinical practice15. Previous studies reported that the mFI-5 and mFI-11 were both associated with postoperative complications with comparable predictive power36. The mFI is a deficit accumulation measure of frailty, which mainly focusing on pre-existing comorbidities. Charlson comorbidity index is a convenient tool to assess comorbidity severity and predict mortality risk of surgical patients37. The current study found that high-risk comorbidity (CCI ≥2), but not advanced age or Fried frailty, was an independent prognostic factor of major complications. Future studies should aim to evaluate the predictive value of CCI and mFI-5 in predicting major or overall complications among patients undergoing complex spine surgery or those with advanced age.

Another significant result of our study is that Fried frailty was significantly associated with prolonged LOS. Previous research has demonstrated that preoperative frailty is associated with postoperative complications and poor recovery following elective procedures38. Our study suggests that even with the implementation of ERAS protocols, Fried frailty remains a significant predictor of poor postoperative recovery. While ERAS optimizes the perioperative management of TLIF surgery, frail patients still face considerable challenges in restoring metabolic balance, physical rehabilitation, and regaining independence after surgery30. Identifying modifiable factors that significantly correlate with frailty and substantially impact postoperative outcomes is fundamental in establishing operational management programs for older patients. We found that an MNA-SF score below 12 points, which serves as a cutoff value for the risk of malnutrition, was a predictor of prolonged LOS. MNA-SF is a screening scale used to assess nutritional status; however, it also includes queries regarding other geriatric issues, including cognitive impairment, mobility, acute disease or psychological stress, weight loss, and food intake, which can not only define malnutrition but can also provide information regarding physical function decline23. Surgical stress can induce a catabolic state, where the body breaks down tissues, especially proteins, to meet the increased energy demands and support the healing process. This catabolic state can result in muscle protein breakdown, leading to muscle wasting and potentially compromising the overall recovery process39,40. Malnutrition and decreased physiological reserve hinder the body’s ability to maintain homeostasis during physiological stress. Nutritional intervention before, during, and after surgery plays a crucial role in optimizing nutrient stores and supporting the body’s ability to cope with the stress of surgery. Adequate nutrition is essential for various physiological processes, including immune function, tissue repair, and maintenance of muscle mass41. Frail patients have a predisposition to poor tolerance for early rehabilitation and home exercise, leading to an increasing dependency on institutional care compared to robust elderly patients. Balance and strength training can also prepare the patient for postoperative activities, emphasizing the strengthening of muscles that are most utilized during the recovery period42.

Prehabilitation comprises multidisciplinary healthcare interventions, including exercise, nutritional optimization, and psychological preparation, which aim to strengthen physiological reserve and enhance functional capacity43. Several meta-analyses and randomized trials on multimodal prehabilitation have reported clinical and functional benefits, yet only a few studies have reported using prehabilitation in an ERAS setting11. A retrospective analysis on colorectal cancer surgery revealed that ERAS patients who underwent multimodal prehabilitation maintained their fat-free mass at 8 weeks postsurgery, in comparison to ERAS patients who received only rehabilitation44. Another prospective study demonstrated that twice as many prehabilitated patients recovered their functional walking capacity, as defined by the 6 min walk test, at 8 weeks after surgery compared to the patients who received ERAS care alone. These findings contribute valuable insights into the efficacy of comprehensive perioperative strategies, emphasizing the importance of integrating prehabilitation within ERAS protocols for improving postoperative outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. In practice, the specific exercise regimen varies significantly between studies, concerning exercise type and duration (from 2 to 12 weeks), and there is limited knowledge regarding the dose-response relationship44. While our ERAS program included short-term inpatient preoperative prehabilitation, it was observed that prefrail patients exhibited a higher incidence of poor postoperative recovery. Integration of well-established prehabilitation, which enhances tolerance to surgical stress, with ERAS care, which minimizes surgical stress, has the potential to promote surgical resilience30.

This is a prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥75 years who underwent enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease. Frail patients were compared with non/prefrail patients regarding the incidences of postoperative AEs. The principal strength of this study is the use of high-quality data from a prospective observational cohort. This yielded high completion rates for most outcome measures and data that reflect ‘real-world’ practice. Moreover, the average age of patients in our study is older than previously mentioned. Our study is also strengthened by implementing clinical outcomes and follow‐up patient-reported outcomes, which have not been thoroughly evaluated in previous studies.

The present study has several limitations. First, this was a single-center exploratory study. The sample sizes were chosen based on previous experience and similar studies due to the lack of data on older ERAS patients. Our sample size was 253, and therefore, it met the minimum requirements. Nevertheless, the sample size of the current study is relatively small. A multicenter study with a large sample size may increase the generalizability of the study results. Second, due to the nature of the prospective study, we cannot include frail patients who received conventional care. A previous retrospective analysis of patients >65 years of age undergoing open TLIF revealed that ERAS significantly improves the return of physiologic function and length of stay in frail patients compared to non-ERAS frail patients17. Our study suggests that ERAS alone may not be sufficient for frail older patients, who represent the most vulnerable population in in surgical practice. Third, given the data distribution, nonfrail and prefrail patients were combined into one group. The proportion of robust individuals with lumbar disorders is relatively low among the oldest-old patients. Fourth, we only employed the Fried frailty scale as a preoperative screening tool; hence, we cannot compare the predictive values of the Fried frailty scale with other instruments, such as the mFI-5 and FRAIL scale15. Implementing more objective measures like muscle mass and grip strength will also be helpful for frailty assessment. Lastly, to avoid bias resulting from different surgical procedure, we only included patients undergoing TLIF surgery. High-quality multicenter studies may better elucidate the role of ERAS in a broader population of spine surgical patients.

Conclusion

Preoperative frailty, as assessed by the Fried frailty scale, was associated with increased 90-day AEs rates following scheduled TLIF surgery in post-ERAS patients aged ≥75 years. A higher CCI grade was an independent predictor for 90-day major complications, while Fried frailty and MNA-SF scores <12 predicted poor postoperative recovery. Continued research and multidisciplinary collaboration will be essential to refine and optimize protocols for surgical care in frail older adults.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethical review committee of Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University (IRB#2018-086).

Sources of funding:

This research received grant from Seed Program of Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University (No. YC20220103), National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2020YFC2004900), and Post-subsidy funds for National Clinical Research Center, Ministry of Science and Technology of China (No. 303-01-001-0272-05). The funding organization did not participate in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Author contribution

S.-K.W. and S.-B.L.: mainly contributed to the conception of the study and wrote the manuscript; Q.-J.W. and X.-L.C.: made an important contribution to the revision of the manuscript. Other authors mainly performed the data collection and data analyses.

Conflicts of interest disclosure

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research registration unique identifying number (UIN)

Chinese clinical trial (trial no. ChiCTR1800020363).

Guarantor

Shuaikang Wang, Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University, 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng, Beijing 100053, People’s Republic of China, E-mail: jackwangDR@163.com. Shibao Lu, Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University, 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng, Beijing 100053, People’s Republic of China, E-mail: shibaolu@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn.

Data availability statement

All data and materials can be obtained by mail of the corresponding author.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned, externally peer-reviewed.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Departments of Anesthesiology, Geriatrics, Nutrition, Pharmacy, and Neurology for preoperative MDT assessment.

Declarations

Shuai-Kang Wang, Qijun Wang, and Peng Wang contributed equally to this work and share the first authorship.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Published online 9 May 2024

Sources

References

44 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (43 records are cited).

  1. Imaging of degenerative and infectious conditions of the spine

    Shah LM, Ross JS

    2016Neurosurgery 79:315–335 · PMID 27352276doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000001323

  2. Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015

    Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, et al.

    2019Spine 44:369–376 · PMID 30074971doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002822

  3. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults

    Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, et al.

    2010JAMA 303:1259–1265 · PMID 20371784doi:10.1001/jama.2010.338

  4. Spine degenerative conditions and their treatments: national trends in the United States of America

    Buser Z, Ortega B, D’Oro A, et al.

    2018Global Spine J 8:57–67 · PMID 29456916doi:10.1177/2192568217696688

  5. Characteristics of operating room procedures in U.S. Hospitals, 2011

    Weiss AJ, Elixhauser A, Andrews RM

    2006Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs Rockville (MD · PMID 24716251

  6. National trends in lumbar spine decompression and fusion surgery in Finland, 1997-2018

    Ponkilainen VT, Huttunen TT, Neva MH, et al.

    2021Acta Orthop 92:199–203 · PMID 33106074doi:10.1080/17453674.2020.1839244

  7. Surgical trends and regional variation in Danish patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis between 2002 and 2018: a retrospective registry-based study of 83,783 patients

    Jensen RK, Skovsgaard CV, Ziegler DS, et al.

    2023BMC Health Serv Res 23:665 · PMID 37340411doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09638-7

  8. Complications, reoperations, readmissions, and length of hospital stay in 34 639 surgical cases of lumbar disc herniation

    Fjeld OR, Grøvle L, Helgeland J, et al.

    2019Bone Joint J 101-B:470–477 · PMID 30929479doi:10.1302/0301-620X.101B4.BJJ-2018-1184.R1

  9. Multimodal strategies to improve surgical outcome

    Kehlet H, Wilmore DW

    2002Am J Surg 183:630–641 · PMID 12095591doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00866-8

  10. Opportunities and challenges for the next phase of enhanced recovery after surgery: a review

    Ljungqvist O, Boer HDd, Balfour A, et al.

    2021JAMA Surg 156:775–784 · PMID 33881466doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0586

  11. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Does frailty play a role?

    Studniarek A, Borsuk DJ, Marecik SJ, et al.

    2021Am Surg 87:1054–1061 · PMID 33295194doi:10.1177/0003134820956357

  12. Comparison of perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing short-level lumbar fusion surgery after implementing enhanced recovery after surgery: a propensity score matching analysis focusing on young-old and old-old

    Cui P, Wang P, Hu X, et al.

    2022Clin Interv Aging 17:1793–1801 · PMID 36506849doi:10.2147/CIA.S389927

  13. Management of frailty: opportunities, challenges, and future directions

    Dent E, Martin FC, Bergman H, et al.

    2019Lancet (London, England) 394:1376–1386 · PMID 31609229doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31785-4

  14. The prevalence and impact of frailty in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis

    Kim HJ, Park S, Park SH, et al.

    2019Eur Spine J 28:46–54 · PMID 30173327doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5710-1

  15. The impact of frailty on spine surgery: systematic review on 10 years clinical studies

    Veronesi F, Borsari V, Martini L, et al.

    2021Aging Dis 12:625–645 · PMID 33815887doi:10.14336/AD.2020.0904

  16. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype

    Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al.

    2001J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56:M146–M156 · PMID 11253156doi:10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146

  17. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves return of physiological function in frail patients undergoing one- to two-level TLIFs: an observational retrospective cohort study

    Porche K, Yan S, Mohamed B, et al.

    2022Spine J 22:1513–1522 · PMID 35447326doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2022.04.007

  18. STROCSS 2021: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery

    Mathew G, Agha R, Group S

    2021Ann Med Surg 96:103026 · PMID 34820121doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103026

  19. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway: association with lower incidence of wound complications and severe hypoalbuminemia in patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion surgery

    Wang S, Wang P, Li X, et al.

    2022J Orthop Surg 17:178 · PMID 35331289doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03070-z

  20. Activities of daily living at hospital admission and estimated survival time of older patients

    Ryg J, Engberg H, Anru PL, et al.

    2021Age Ageing 50:1200–1207 · PMID 33247584doi:10.1093/ageing/afaa251

  21. Incidence of preoperative instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) dependence and adverse outcomes in older surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Chen A, An E, Yan E, et al.

    2023J Clin Anesth 89:111151 · PMID 37210810doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111151

  22. Impaired mobility, ASA status and administration of tramadol are risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients aged 75 years or more after major abdominal surgery

    Brouquet A, Cudennec T, Benoist S, et al.

    2010Ann Surg 251:759–765 · PMID 20224380doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c1cfc9

  23. Association between preoperative malnutrition and postoperative delirium after hip fracture surgery in older adults

    Mazzola P, Ward L, Zazzetta S, et al.

    2017J Am Geriatr Soc 65:1222–1228 · PMID 28263371doi:10.1111/jgs.14764

  24. Prevalence and correlates of frailty among community-dwelling Chinese older adults: the China health and retirement longitudinal study

    Wu C, Smit E, Xue QL, et al.

    2017J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 73:102–108 · PMID 28525586doi:10.1093/gerona/glx098

  25. High serum levels of malondialdehyde and 8-OHDG are both associated with early cognitive impairment in patients with acute ischaemic stroke

    Liu Z, Liu Y, Tu X, et al.

    2017Sci Rep 7:9493 · PMID 28842715doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09988-3

  26. National surgical quality improvement program adverse events combined with Clavien-Dindo scores can direct quality improvement processes in surgical patients

    Ghannam AD, Crandall ML, Woodruff G, et al.

    2022J Patient Safety 18:e900–e902 · PMID 35135982doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000987

  27. Frailty is predictive of adverse postoperative events in patients undergoing lumbar fusion

    Leven DM, Lee NJ, Kim JS, et al.

    2017Global Spine J 7:529–535 · PMID 28894682doi:10.1177/2192568217700099

  28. The prevalence of frailty and its association with clinical outcomes in general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Hewitt J, Long S, Carter B, et al.

    2018Age Ageing 47:793–800 · PMID 30084863doi:10.1093/ageing/afy110

  29. Enhanced recovery after spine surgery: a systematic review

    Elsarrag M, Soldozy S, Patel P, et al.

    2019Neurosurg Focus 46:E3 · PMID 30933920doi:10.3171/2019.1.FOCUS18700

  30. Prehabilitation, enhanced recovery after surgery, or both? A narrative review

    Gillis C, Ljungqvist O, Carli F

    2022Br J Anaesth 128:434–448 · PMID 35012741doi:10.1016/j.bja.2021.12.007

  31. The association of preoperative frailty and postoperative delirium: a meta-analysis

    Gracie TJ, Caufield-Noll C, Wang N-Y, et al.

    2021Anesth Analg 133:314–323 · PMID 34257192doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005609

  32. Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health

    Hoogendijk EO, Afilalo J, Ensrud KE, et al.

    2019Lancet (London, England) 394:1365–1375 · PMID 31609228doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31786-6

  33. Sarcopenia

    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Sayer AA

    2019Lancet (London, England) 393:2636–2646 · PMID 31171417doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31138-9

  34. The prevalence and impact of frailty in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis

    Kim H-J, Park S, Park S-H, et al.

    2019Eur Spine J 28:46–54 · PMID 30173327doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5710-1

  35. Impact of frailty on the outcomes of patients undergoing degenerative spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Baek W, Park S-Y, Kim Y

    2023BMC Geriatr 23:771 · PMID 37996826doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04448-2

  36. The 5-item modified frailty index is predictive of severe adverse events in patients undergoing surgery for adult spinal deformity

    Yagi M, Michikawa T, Hosogane N, et al.

    2019Spine 44:E1083–E1091 · PMID 30994601doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000003063

  37. Factors predicting complication rates following total knee replacement

    SooHoo NF, Lieberman JR, Ko CY, et al.

    2006J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:480–485 · PMID 16510811doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00629

  38. Routine frailty assessment predicts postoperative complications in elderly patients across surgical disciplines - a retrospective observational study

    Birkelbach O, Mörgeli R, Spies C, et al.

    2019BMC Anesthesiol 19:204 · PMID 31699033doi:10.1186/s12871-019-0880-x

  39. Metabolic and the surgical stress response considerations to improve postoperative recovery

    Helander EM, Webb MP, Menard B, et al.

    2019Curr Pain Headache Rep 23:33 · PMID 30976992doi:10.1007/s11916-019-0770-4

  40. Systemic and metabolic signature of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults

    Lu Y, Karagounis LG, Ng TP, et al.

    2020J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 75:309–317 · PMID 30624690doi:10.1093/gerona/glz001

  41. Promoting perioperative metabolic and nutritional care

    Gillis C, Carli F

    2015Anesthesiology 123:1455–1472 · PMID 26248016doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000795

  42. High-intensity interval training produces a significant improvement in fitness in less than 31 days before surgery for urological cancer: a randomised control trial

    Blackwell JEM, Doleman B, Boereboom CL, et al.

    2020Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 23:696–704 · PMID 32157250doi:10.1038/s41391-020-0219-1

  43. Prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Punnoose A, Claydon-Mueller LS, Weiss O, et al.

    2023JAMA Network Open 6:e238050 · PMID 37052919doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8050

  44. Trimodal prehabilitation for colorectal surgery attenuates post-surgical losses in lean body mass: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials

    Gillis C, Fenton TR, Sajobi TT, et al.

    2019Clin Nutr (Edinburgh, Scotland) 38:1053–1060 · PMID 30025745doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.06.982

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: International Journal of Surgery 2024
Journal version
International Journal of Surgery (2024) · doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000001594
Confirmed
2024-05-09
Licence
CC BY-SA 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in International Journal of Surgery2024-05-09
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Wang S, Wang Q, Wang P, Li X, Cui P, Wang D, et al. The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes of older patients undergoing enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2024;110(8):4785–4795. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000001594
BibTeX
@article{Wang2024The,
  title   = {The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes of older patients undergoing enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery: a prospective cohort study},
  author  = {Shuai-Kang Wang and Qi-Jun Wang and Peng Wang and Xiang-Yu Li and Peng Cui and Dong-Fan Wang and Xiao-Long Chen and Chao Kong and Shi-Bao Lu},
  journal = {International Journal of Surgery},
  year    = {2024},
  volume  = {110},
  number  = {8},
  pages   = {4785–4795},
  doi     = {10.1097/JS9.0000000000001594},
  pmid    = {38729123}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes of older patients undergoing enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery: a prospective cohort study
AU  - Shuai-Kang Wang
AU  - Qi-Jun Wang
AU  - Peng Wang
AU  - Xiang-Yu Li
AU  - Peng Cui
AU  - Dong-Fan Wang
AU  - Xiao-Long Chen
AU  - Chao Kong
AU  - Shi-Bao Lu
JO  - International Journal of Surgery
PY  - 2024
VL  - 110
IS  - 8
SP  - 4785
EP  - 4795
DO  - 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001594
SN  - 1743-9191
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001594
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes of older patients undergoing enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery: a prospective cohort study by Shuai-Kang Wang, Qi-Jun Wang, Peng Wang, Xiang-Yu Li, Peng Cui, Dong-Fan Wang, Xiao-Long Chen, Chao Kong, Shi-Bao Lu, first published in International Journal of Surgery 2024;110(8):4785–4795, doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000001594, PMID 38729123, PMC11325916. Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. It is used under the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. This adaptation is shared under the same licence, CC BY-SA, as the licence requires.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even for commercial purposes, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article