Can Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) Predict Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Oncological Surgery?

  • Geetu BhandoriaEmail author
  • Jitendra D. Mane
Original Article


Surgeons constantly try to achieve optimal surgical outcome, number, or extent of postoperative complications being an important part of it. Oncological surgeries are conventionally more challenging and complex compared with most nononcological ones. Gawande et al. devised SAS in 2007 in Boston as a predictor tool for postoperative complications (J Am Coll Surg 204:201–208, 2007). A validation study was done by in another cohort of 100 patients; however, only 70% of them had pathologically confirmed malignancies (Ann Surg 240(2):205–213, 2004). We attempt to assess SAS as a tool to predict postoperative complications in a series of 100 gynecological oncological patients operated at tertiary care center. SAS score of 100 patients with gynecologic malignancies, undergoing surgery at a tertiary care center, was prospectively collected over 4 years. These patients were observed for development of any complications occurring up to 30 days postsurgery. The complication events were graded as per Clavien-Dindo classification (Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 15:49, 2017). The data obtained was statistically analyzed by chi-square test. Thirty complication events were recorded in these 100 patients over a period of 4 years. Majority of complication events were grade IIIa or less (22 out of 30); there was only one death on 8th postoperative day. Fifty percent of patients were with SAS score of 5 or less developed complications compared with just 22.9% in patients with a score of 6 or more. Lower SAS score might be associated with higher postoperative complications in patients undergoing gynecologic oncological surgeries. Thus, patients with lower scores may benefit from a triage to more intensive postoperative care.


Surgical Apgar score Gynecological malignancy Postoperative complications Clavien Dindo grading 



Prashant Bhandarkar, Medical Statistician, BARC Hospital, Mumbai—for statistical analysis and support. Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, The Gujarat Cancer & Research Hospital, Ahmedabad and Command Hospital, Pune—for peri-operative care and support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the Institute Ethical committee. An informed consent was obtained for all patients included in study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Zighelboim I, Kizer N, Taylor NP, Case AS, Gao F, Thaker PH, Rader JS, Massad LS, Mutch DG, Powel MA (2010) “Surgical Apgar score” predicts postoperative complications after cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 116:370–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S, Bouman C, De Jong S, Sanday K, Nicklin J, Land R, Obermair A (2009) Clinical audit in gynecological cancer surgery: development of a risk scoring system to predict adverse events. Gynecol Oncol 115(3):329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gawande AA, Kwaan MR, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SA, Zinner MA (2007) An Apgar score for surgery. J Am Coll Surg 204:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhandoria G, Mankad M, Dave PS, Desai A, Patel S (2017) Surgical Apgar score: validation in a regional cancer centre in Western India. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 15:49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004 Aug) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Regenbogen SE, Ehrenfeld JM, Lipsitz SR, Greenberg CC, Hutter MM, Gawande AA (2009) Utility of the surgical Apgar score. Validation in 4119 Patients. Arch Surg 144(1):30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark RM, Lee MS, Rauh-Hain JA, Hall T, Boruta DM, del Carmen MG, Goodman A (2015) Schorge JO2, Growdon WB. Surgical Apgar score and prediction of morbidity in women undergoing hysterectomy for malignancy. Gynecol Oncol 136(3):516–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park SH, Lee JU, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim SW, Kim YT (2018) Prediction of perioperative complications after robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer using the modified surgical Apgar score. BMC Cancer 18:908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T (1996) ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. BJA 77(2):217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Lawrence DE (1981) APACHEacute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med 9(8):591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78(3):355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J (1996) The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Asessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ (2016) Asessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315(8):762–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ali Z, Mundkur A (2016 Jun) Surgical Apgar score in prediction of post-operative complications in gynecological surgery. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 5(6):1796–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Santoshsingh SR, Sathyakrishna BR (2016) Surgical Apgar score - a simple prognostic tool in surgery. Int J Sci Stud 4(4):1–5Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haddow JB, Adwan H, Clark SE, Tayeh S, Antonowicz SS, Jayia P, Chicken DW, Wiggins T, Davenport R, Kaptanis S, Fakhry M, Knowles CH, Elmetwally AS, Geddoa E, Nair MS, Naeem I, Adegbola S, Muirhead LJ (2014) London Surgical Research Group. Use of the surgical Apgar score to guide postoperative care. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 96:352–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics & GynecologyCommand HospitalPuneIndia
  2. 2.Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Command HospitalPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations