Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun;30(6):423-429.
doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2024.36332.

Efficiency of the estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) score in predicting postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Süleyman Bulut  1 , Yalcin Kizilkan  1 , Hüseyin Gültekin  1 , Ali Yasin Ozercan  2 , Burak Köseoğlu  3 , Halil Demirçakan  4 , Tanju Keten  1 , Ünsal Eroğlu  1 , Özer Güzel  1 , Altug Tuncel  1 , Cüneyt Özden  1
Affiliations

Efficiency of the estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) score in predicting postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Süleyman Bulut et al. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is increasingly becoming the standard surgical treatment for prostate cancer. While some risk factors for postoperative complications of RARP have been identified, no scoring model that incorporates both preoperative physical status of the patient and intraoperative risk factors has been developed. The Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) score was initially described to predict postoperative complications after gastrointestinal surgical procedures. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the E-PASS score in predicting postoperative complications of RARP.

Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted on 204 patients who underwent RARP between 2019 and 2022. Demographic data, parameters indicating patients' preoperative physical condition, and intraoperative risk factors were analyzed. The E-PASS score and subscores were calculated for each patient.

Results: Of the patients, 164 (80.4%) were discharged without any postoperative complications (Group 1), and 40 (19.6%) experienced various degrees of complications (Group 2). Patients in Group 2 had higher rates of previous abdominal surgery, elevated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance scores, longer surgical durations, and higher E-PASS scores. To assess the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Risk Score (CRS) as a predictive factor for postoperative complications, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and a cut-off value was established. The cut-off value for CRS was determined to be -0.0345 (area under the curve [AUC]=0.783, CI: 0.713-0.853; p<0.001). Patients with a CRS higher than the cut-off value had a 16.4 times higher rate of postoperative complications after RARP (95% CI: 5.58-48.5).

Conclusion: The E-PASS scoring model successfully predicts postoperative complications in patients undergoing RARP by using preoperative data about the physical status of the patient and surgical risk factors. The E-PASS score and its subscores could be utilized as objective criteria to determine the risk of postoperative complications before and immediately after surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC curve evaluating the effectiveness of CRS in predicting postoperative complications of RARP.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90. - PubMed
    1. Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menon M, Vallancien G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:feasibility study in men. Eur Urol. 2001;40:70–4. - PubMed
    1. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy:A comparative study at a single institution. J Urol. 2003;169:1689–93. - PubMed
    1. Du Y, Long Q, Guan B, Mu L, Tian J, Jiang Y, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients:a system review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:272–87. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maynou L, Mehtsun WT, Serra-Sastre V, Papanicolas I. Patterns of adoption of robotic radical prostatectomy in the United States and England. Health Serv Res. 2021;56 Suppl 3:1441–61. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources