World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1567–1568 | Cite as

Derivation and Validation of a Novel Physiological Emergency Surgery Acuity Score

  • Hui-Xian Li
  • Fu-Shan Xue
  • Chao Wen
Letter to the Editor

To the Editor

The recent article by Sangji et al. [1] derivating and validating a novel physiological emergency surgery acuity score (PESAS) was of great interest. They show that the PESAS can assess the acuity of disease at presentation in emergency surgery patients and is strongly associated with postoperative mortality. The main strengths of this study are the use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database including a relatively large sample of emergency surgery patients. Furthermore, the authors had applied properly statistical methods to derivate the PESAS. Given that accurate prediction of postoperative mortality is important for emergency surgery quality improvement, their findings have the potential implications. However, we noted the several aspects of this study that were not well addressed.

First, in designing the PESAS, it was unclear why Sangji et al. only included the preoperative variables related to health...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Sangji NF, Bohnen JD, Ramly EP, Velmahos GC, Chang DC, Kaafarani HMA (2017) Derivation and validation of a novel physiological emergency surgery acuity score (PESAS). World J Surg 41(7):1782–1789. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-3915-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cihoric M, Toft Tengberg L, Bay-Nielsen M, Bang Foss N (2016) Prediction of outcome after emergency high-risk intra-abdominal surgery using the Surgical Apgar Score. Anesth Analg 123(6):1516–1521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCoy CC, Englum BR, Keenan JE, Vaslef SN, Shapiro ML, Scarborough JE (2015) Impact of specific postoperative complications on the outcomes of emergency general surgery patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 78(5):912–918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scarborough JE, Schumacher J, Pappas TN, McCoy CC, Englum BR, Agarwal SK Jr, Greenberg CC (2016) Which complications matter most? Prioritizing quality improvement in emergency general surgery. J Am Coll Surg 222(4):515–524CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMillan MT, Allegrini V, Asbun HJ, Ball CG, Bassi C, Beane JD et al (2017) Incorporation of procedure-specific risk into the ACS-NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator improves the prediction of morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 265(5):978–986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merkow RP, Hall BL, Cohen ME, Dimick JB, Wang E, Chow WB et al (2012) Relevance of the c-statistic when evaluating risk-adjustment models in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 214(5):822–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nag DS (2015) Assessing the risk: Scoring systems for outcome prediction in emergency laparotomies. Biomedicine (Taipei) 5(4):20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations