Key result
P-POSSUM estimates postoperative mortality more accurately than POSSUM, with an observed-to-expected ratio of ~0.8 vs 0.4.
Why the study?
Accurate prediction of postoperative morbidity and mortality is essential for risk stratification and outcome assessment in general surgery, but the comparative accuracy of POSSUM and P-POSSUM scoring systems needed evaluation.
Does the P-POSSUM scoring system improve the predictive accuracy of postoperative morbidity and mortality in general surgery patients compared to the POSSUM scoring system?
Observational (n=120)
No
Does the P-POSSUM scoring system improve the predictive accuracy of postoperative morbidity and mortality in general surgery patients compared to the POSSUM scoring system?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.79% vs 0.44%
The P-POSSUM scoring system provides a more accurate estimation of postoperative morbidity and mortality than the original POSSUM system in general surgical patients, making it a more reliable tool for surgical audit and risk stratification.
Supports P-POSSUM for mortality calibration in general surgery cohorts; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
Background: Accurate prediction of postoperative morbidity and mortality is essential in surgical practice for risk stratification and outcome assessment. The Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM) and its modification, Portsmouth-POSSUM (P-POSSUM), are widely used scoring systems designed to predict surgical outcomes. These tools help in clinical decision-making, auditing surgical performance, and improving patient care, especially in diverse general surgical populations.Aims:To evaluate and compare the accuracy of POSSUM and P-POSSUM scoring systems in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality in general surgery patients.Materials and Methods:This prospective observational study was conducted over a period of 8 months in the Department of General Surgery at a tertiary care hospital. A total of 120 patients undergoing elective and emergency general surgical procedures were included. Preoperative physiological parameters and intraoperative operative variables were recorded for each patient to calculate POSSUM and P-POSSUM scores. Patients were followed postoperatively for complications and mortality. Observed morbidity and mortality rates were compared with predicted values, and the observed-to-expected (O) ratios were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the predictive accuracy of both scoring systems.Results:Out of 120 patients, postoperative morbidity was observed in 42 (35.0%) patients, while mortality occurred in 8 (6.7%) patients. POSSUM predicted higher morbidity (50.0%) and mortality (15.0%) compared to observed outcomes, indicating overestimation. In contrast, P-POSSUM showed better correlation, predicting morbidity at 38.0% and mortality at 8.5%. The observed-to-expected (O:E) ratio for morbidity was 0.84 forPOSSUM and 0.92 for P-POSSUM, while for mortality it was 0.44 and 0.79 respectively. Higher scores were significantly associated with increased postoperative complications and mortality (p < 0.05). Patients undergoing emergency surgeries and those aged >50 years demonstrated higher morbidity and mortality rates. Overall, P-POSSUM showed superior predictive accuracy compared to POSSUM.Conclusion:Both POSSUM and P-POSSUM are valuable tools for predicting surgical outcomes; however, P-POSSUM provides a moreaccurate estimation of mortality and morbidity. These scoring systems can be effectively used for risk stratification, audit, and improving quality of care in general surgery patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R et al. (2026) conducted an observational in General surgery patients (n=120). P-POSSUM scoring system vs. POSSUM scoring system was evaluated on Observed-to-expected (O:E) ratio for mortality. The P-POSSUM scoring system provided more accurate estimations of postoperative mortality compared to the POSSUM system, with an observed-to-expected mortality ratio of 0.79 versus 0.44.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: