Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Perioperative Risk Prediction in Major Gynaecological Oncology Surgery: A National Diagnostic Survey of UK Clinical Practice
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Perioperative Risk Prediction in Major Gynaecological Oncology Surgery: A National Diagnostic Survey of UK Clinical Practice
Do you wish to request the book?
Perioperative Risk Prediction in Major Gynaecological Oncology Surgery: A National Diagnostic Survey of UK Clinical Practice
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Perioperative Risk Prediction in Major Gynaecological Oncology Surgery: A National Diagnostic Survey of UK Clinical Practice
2025
Overview
Background: Gynaecological oncology (GO) surgery involves a wide range of procedures, from minor diagnostic interventions to highly complex cytoreductive operations. Accurate perioperative diagnostics—particularly in major surgery—are critical to optimise patient care, predict morbidity, and facilitate shared decision-making. This study aimed to evaluate current practices in perioperative risk assessment amongst UK GO specialists, focusing on the use, perception, and applicability of diagnostic risk prediction tools. Methods: A national multicentre survey was distributed via the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) to consultants, trainees, and nurse specialists. The questionnaire examined clinician familiarity with and use of existing tools such as POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and ACS NSQIP, as well as perceived reliability and areas for improvement. Results: Fifty-four clinicians responded, two-thirds of whom were consultant gynaecological oncologists. While 51.9% used morbidity prediction tools selectively, only 7.4% used them routinely for all major surgeries. The most common models were P-POSSUM (39.6%) and ACS NSQIP (25%), though over 20% did not use any formal tool. Despite this, 80% of respondents expressed a desire for more accurate, GO-specific models. Conclusions: This study reveals a gap between available perioperative diagnostics and real-world clinical use in GO surgical planning. There is an urgent need for validated, user-friendly, and GO-specific risk prediction tools—particularly for high-risk, complex surgical cases. Further research should focus on prospective validation of tools such as ACS NSQIP and their integration into routine practice to improve outcomes in gynaecological oncology.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
