Can we measure surgical resilience?

David Graham, Guillermo Becerril-Martinez*, Lena Quinto, Dong Fang Zhao

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Surgical resilience describes psychological resilience within a surgical setting. Within a surgical setting, psychologically resilient patients have improved recovery and wound-healing. The search for biological correlates in resilient patients has led to the hypothesis that certain endogenous biomarkers (namely neuropeptide Y (NPY), testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)) are altered in resilient patients. The concept of surgical resilience raises the question of whether enhanced recovery following surgery can be demonstrated in patients with high titres of resilience biomarkers as compared to patients with low titres of resilience biomarkers. To determine the prognostic value of resilience biomarkers in surgical recovery, a cohort of patients undergoing major surgery should initially be psychometrically tested for their resilience levels before and after surgery so that biomarker levels of NPY, testosterone and DHEA can be compared to a validated psychometric test of resilience. The primary outcome would be length of hospital stay with and without an enhanced recovery program. Secondary outcome measures such as complications, time in rehabilitation and readmission could also be included. If the hypothesis is upheld, resilience biomarkers could be used to support more individualised perioperative management and lead to more efficient and effective allocation of healthcare resources.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)76-79
Number of pages4
JournalMedical Hypotheses
Volume86
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Can we measure surgical resilience?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Graham, D., Becerril-Martinez, G., Quinto, L., & Zhao, D. F. (2016). Can we measure surgical resilience? Medical Hypotheses, 86, 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2015.12.001