Next Article in Journal
Synchronous Cardiac Fibroma and Medulloblastoma in Gorlin Syndrome: A Paradigmatic Case and Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Coping Strategies and Quality of Life in Adolescents with Cancer: Pilot Study Findings
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Predicting Postoperative Mortality in Neonates with Congenital Gastrointestinal Anomalies: Development of a Prognostic Scoring System

by
Filla Reviyani Suryaningrat
1,*,
Eka Rizki Wulandari
2,
Devatri Hudayari
1,
Natasha Amalda Ediwan
1,
Lulu Eva Rakhmilla
3,
Fiva Aprilia Kadi
1,
Aris Primadi
1 and
Tetty Yuniati
1
1
Department of Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung 40161, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40161, Indonesia
3
Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistic Division, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 45363, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2025, 12(10), 1313; https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101313
Submission received: 4 August 2025 / Revised: 16 September 2025 / Accepted: 25 September 2025 / Published: 30 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pediatric Neonatology)

Abstract

Highlights

What are the main findings?
  • The FILLA score, a four-parameter prognostic model (sepsis, mechanical ventilation, prematurity, and upper gastrointestinal anomalies), accurately predicts postoperative mortality in neonates with congenital gastrointestinal anomalies.
  • Neonatal sepsis and the need for mechanical ventilation were the strongest independent predictors, reflecting critical illness severity prior to surgery.
What is the implications of the main findings?
  • The FILLA score provides a simple, preoperative-only tool for early mortality risk stratification in neonates, especially valuable in resource-limited settings.
  • This score can guide perioperative management, surgical counselling, and targeted family communication, and has potential for integration into digital decision-support systems.

Abstract

Background: Congenital gastrointestinal anomalies (CGIAs) are the third most common congenital malformation globally, with a mortality rate reaching 39.8% in developing countries. Surgical intervention is often necessary for life-saving or corrective purposes. However, postoperative mortality in resource-limited settings can reach up to 50%. Identifying prognostic factors is essential to improve clinical management and inform family counseling regarding potential outcomes. Objectives: We aimed to develop a prognostic scoring system to predict postoperative mortality in neonates with CGIAs. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed medical records of neonates who underwent surgery for CGIAs between 2020 and 2024. Prognostic factors were identified using logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine optimal cutoff points for mortality prediction. Results: A total of 282 neonates were included; 121 (42.9%) died and 161 (57.1%) survived. Multivariate logistic regression identified sepsis, mechanical ventilation, prematurity, and upper gastrointestinal anomalies as independent predictors of mortality. A scoring system was developed, with a score > 3 yielding a sensitivity of 83.5% and specificity of 72.0%. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.840 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: We developed a simple and reliable scoring system to predict postoperative mortality in neonates with CGIAs, which may support clinical decision-making and family counseling.

1. Introduction

Congenital anomalies remain a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1,2,3]. Among these, CGIAs rank as the third most common anomaly, with a global prevalence of approximately 6.42% of live births and a mortality rate reaching 39.8% LMICs [1,3,4].
Despite advancements in neonatal care, CGIAs continue to pose a significant clinical challenge due to delayed diagnosis, limited access to advanced medical interventions, and high rates of postoperative complications such as sepsis, respiratory failure, and multiorgan dysfunction, particularly in LMICs [1,5]. In Indonesia, epidemiological data on CGIAs remain scarce. At Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, a national referral center in West Java, 166 neonates with CGIAs were treated between January 2022 and September 2024, indicating a considerable clinical burden.
Surgical intervention remains the mainstay of treatment for CGIAs, aiming to correct anatomical defects and improve survival outcomes [1,6]. However, not all neonates are eligible for surgery due to poor clinical conditions, including severe sepsis, pulmonary infections, or electrolyte imbalances [7,8]. Even among those who undergo surgery, mortality remains high in resource-limited settings, underscoring the urgent need for reliable tools to predict postoperative outcomes [1,9].
Prognostic scoring systems serve as valuable tools in neonatal care by enabling early risk stratification, guiding clinical decision-making, and facilitating communication with families. However, to date, there is no established prognostic model specifically designed to predict mortality in neonates with CGIAs undergoing surgery. This study aims to develop a simple, practical prognostic scoring system based on clinical parameters readily available in most LMICs hospital settings, to assist clinicians in improving perioperative management and outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sample

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital in West Java, Indonesia. Data were obtained from hospital medical records and the Neonatology Division’s registry, covering the period from January 2020 to December 2024.

2.2. Study Population

The study included neonates diagnosed with CGIAs who underwent their first surgical procedure during the study period. Inclusion criteria: (1) neonates diagnosed with CGIAs undergoing initial surgery and (2) availability of complete medical records. Exclusion criteria: (1) neonates who died within 24 h postoperatively and (2) patients referred or discharged against medical advice before completing treatment.
The minimum sample size was calculated using the formula for prognostic studies:
n = 10 × k L
where k is the number of predictors (13) and L is the estimated event proportion (mortality = 0.5). Thus, the required minimum was 260.

2.3. Study Variables

The prognostic variables in this study included both clinical and laboratory parameters available preoperatively. Gestational age was determined from the first day of the last menstrual period, antenatal ultrasound assessment, or postnatal estimation using the New Ballard Score. Birth weight was recorded immediately after delivery and further assess relative to gestational age using the Lubchenco growth chart to classify fetal growth as small, appropriate, or large for gestational age. Associated congenital anomalies were defined as non-gastrointestinal malformations identified clinically or radiologically. The need for mechanical ventilation was noted in neonates requiring either invasive ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Neonatal sepsis was defined as culture-proven sepsis confirmed by a positive blood culture obtained prior to surgery [10]. Types of CGIAs were categorized by anatomical location relative to the ligament of Treitz. The type of surgical intervention referred to the first surgical procedure performed during hospitalization.
Laboratory parameters were also assessed. Electrolyte imbalance was defined as abnormal serum sodium, potassium, chloride, or calcium levels based on neonatal reference ranges [11]. Hypoalbuminemia was defined as serum albumin < 3.0 g/dL [12], while decreased hematocrit was defined as hematocrit < 40% [13]. Elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) was defined as a CRP concentration above the normal reference range for neonatal age and gestational status. Leukopenia was defined as a total white blood cell count <5000/mm3 [11,14].

2.4. Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was postoperative mortality, defined as all-cause death occurring during hospitalization following surgery.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.0 for Mac (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed using the Chi-Square test. Variables with p < 0.25 in bivariate analysis were included in a multivariate logistic regression to determine independent predictors. Models were then calibrated using AUC analysis using the Hosmer Lemeshow test and discrimination value. Calibration was good if Hosmer Lemeshow test p ≥ 0.05, and discrimination was good if AUC > 0.8. Final models were then transformed into a scoring system using each variable’s coefficient (β) and standard error (SE). A cut-off point was determined via Youden’s Index.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

From January 2020 to December 2024, there were 345 neonates diagnosed with CGIAs, admitted to the Department of Child Health Hasan Sadikin General Hospital. Among these patients, there were 63 excluded from the study, including 34 lacks data, 26 died before surgery, and 3 died within 24 h post operative. Therefore, there were 282 cases enrolled in the retrospective study.
A total of 282 neonates with CGIAs who underwent surgical intervention were included in this study. Of these, 121 (42.9%) died during hospitalization, and 161 (57.1%) survived. The subject characteristics from the study are presented in Table 1. The median birth weight was 2656 g (range: 1100–3900 g), and the median gestational age was 37 weeks (range: 28–41 weeks). The most common types of CGIAs included anorectal malformations (43.6%), esophageal atresia (13.1%), and intestinal atresia (12.8%).
In this study, the most common types of CGIAs were anorectal malformations (43.6%), esophageal atresia (13.1%), and duodenal atresia (12.8%). Table 2 summarizes the distribution of each type of CGIAs along with the corresponding survival and mortality outcomes.

3.2. Bivariate Analysis

Bivariate analysis identified several clinical variables significantly associated with mortality, including gestational age < 37 weeks (p = 0.004; OR 2.259), low birth weight < 2500 g (p < 0.001; OR 2.607), presence of associated congenital anomalies (p = 0.001; OR 2.396), need for mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001; OR 8.159), neonatal sepsis (p < 0.001; OR 11.584), upper CGIAs (p < 0.001; OR 3.287). Other laboratory parameters, such as electrolyte imbalance (p = 0.008; OR 2.213), elevated CRP (p = 0.164; OR 1.400), hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.218; OR 1.353), and decreased hematocrit (p = 0.192; OR 1.394), were also initially included for further analysis. The result of the bivariate analysis are summarized in Table 3.

3.3. Multivariate Logistic Regression

Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified four variables as independent predictors of postoperative mortality. Neonatal sepsis had the strongest association with death (AOR 6.84, 95% CI: 3.42–13.71, p < 0.001), followed by the need for mechanical ventilation (AOR 4.61, 95% CI: 2.54–8.37, p < 0.001). Prematurity and upper gastrointestinal anomalies were also associated with increased mortality risk, although the associations were borderline significant (AOR 1.96, 95% CI: 0.99–3.89, p = 0.055; AOR 1.83, 95% CI: 0.99–3.37, p = 0.051, respectively). These variables were included in the prognostic scoring system (Table 4).

3.4. Prognostic Scoring System Development

Each independent predictor was assigned a score based on the magnitude of its regression coefficient. Table 5 shows the final scoring system developed from the multivariate model. The total prognostic score ranged from 0 to 8. The logistic regression equation for predicting mortality was
Logit(p) = −1.758 + 2.566 × (Total Score)
To enhance clinical applicability and recall, the scoring system developed in this study was named the FILLA score, an acronym for Four Indicators Linked to Lethality in Abnormalities (Table 5). This name reflects the model’s foundation on four independent predictors of postoperative mortality: neonatal sepsis, mechanical ventilation, prematurity, and upper gastrointestinal anomalies.

3.5. ROC Analysis and Cut-Off Determination

Receiver operating characteristic (Figure 1) analysis demonstrated strong discriminatory performance of the prognostic model, with an AUC of 0.840 (95% CI: 0.795–0.886; p < 0.001). Based on Youden’s Index, a cutoff score of greater than 3 was identified as the optimal threshold for predicting postoperative mortality. At this cutoff point, the model achieved a sensitivity of 83.5% and specificity of 72.0%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 69.2%, while the negative predictive value (NPV) reached 85.3%. Furthermore, the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 2.98, and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.23, indicating that the scoring system has good potential for clinical risk stratification and ruling out low-risk patients.

3.6. Risk Stratification

Based on the total prognostic score, patients were stratified into three risk categories to facilitate clinical decision-making. The predicted mortality percentages reflect modeled probabilities from logistic regression rather than raw proportions. This risk stratification framework may help clinicians allocate resources more effectively, initiate timely intervention, and conduct targeted family counseling based on objective prognosis estimates (Table 6).

4. Discussion

Congenital gastrointestinal anomalies are among the most common structural birth defects, ranking third in global prevalence after orthopedic and neurological anomalies [6]. Although the overall burden of neonatal mortality has declined in recent decades, CGIAs remain a major contributor to early postoperative deaths, particularly in resource-limited settings [15,16]. In Indonesia, the neonatal mortality rate in 2019 was 12 per 1000 live births, reflecting both improvements in perinatal care and the ongoing challenges in managing high-risk surgical conditions [17].
The postoperative mortality rate of 42.9% observed in this study is consistent with findings from other LMICs, where mortality associated with CGIAs frequently exceeds 40%, especially in settings without timely referral systems, adequate neonatal intensive care, or specialized surgical support [6,15]. Delays in diagnosis, sepsis, late-stage presentation, and limited perioperative infrastructure contribute substantially to these poor outcomes [6,18]. These persistent challenges underscore the urgent need for effective risk stratification tools to guide clinical decision-making and resource allocation in neonatal surgical care.
This study identified four independent predictors of postoperative mortality: neonatal sepsis, need for mechanical ventilation, prematurity, and upper gastrointestinal anomalies. Each of these factors reflects a critical clinical vulnerability that may inform targeted interventions. Sepsis emerged as the most significant predictor of mortality. With a six-fold increase in risk, sepsis exacerbates hemodynamic instability, induces multiorgan dysfunction, and impairs tissue repair following surgery [19,20]. Studies have shown that neonates with sepsis are more likely to develop postoperative complications such as wound dehiscence and prolonged ventilator dependence [10]. These findings are consistent with previous studies, which have consistently identified sepsis as one of the primary drivers of neonatal surgical mortality, particularly in LMICs where early diagnosis and infection control measures remain limited [5,6,21].
In our study, the diagnosis of sepsis was confirmed by the presence of a positive blood culture obtained prior to surgery, which, while specific, requires prolonged incubation time and may not be routinely available in many healthcare settings [22]. Early detection remains a major challenge [23]. Although laboratory-based sepsis markers such as elevated CRP, leukopenia, and hypoalbuminemia were explored, none showed statistically significant associations with mortality in our cohort [22,24]. This underscores the limitations of relying solely on these markers for early risk stratification, and the need for more robust, sensitive screening tools.
Our findings reinforce international recommendations advocating for prompt recognition and aggressive management of neonatal sepsis, particularly in resource-limited neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) settings. The timely initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotics, fluid resuscitations, and supportive care before surgical intervention may substantially improve postoperative outcomes [25,26]. Incorporating sepsis screening protocols into neonatal surgical pathways may serve as a critical step toward reducing mortality among this high-risk population.
Mechanical ventilation, although often essential for stabilization, was also independently associated with increased mortality [23]. The need for ventilatory support reflects the severity of respiratory compromise, which may stem from pulmonary immaturity, infection, or advanced disease at presentation. In this study, neonates who required mechanical ventilation had more than a fourfold increase in the odds of postoperative mortality. This finding is consistent with previous research, which also identified endotracheal intubation as a significant predictor of postoperative mortality in neonates. The requirement for mechanical ventilation frequently indicates the presence of severe respiratory distress, suggesting a reduced physiologic reserve and increased perioperative risk [5].
This study also aligns with findings from other study who reported that ventilator dependence was a strong predictor of poor outcomes in neonatal surgery, particularly in cases requiring prolonged support [21,23]. Mechanical ventilated neonates are often at increased risk for complication such as ventilator-associated pneumonia, oxygen toxicity, and barotrauma, which may further compromise recovery [27,28]. Additionally, ventilator dependence may reflect delayed presentation or more advanced disease severity at the time of surgery, both of which contribute to worse prognoses.
Prematurity, a known risk factor for poor outcomes in neonates, showed an adjusted odds ratio close to 2 in this study [21,29,30]. Preterm infants often have underdeveloped lungs, immature immune systems, and limited cardiorespiratory reserves, making them more vulnerable to perioperative complications [31]. They are at increased risk of sepsis, temperature instability, electrolyte imbalances, and delayed wound healing, all of which may impair recovery following surgery [21,29]. Moreover, their reduced physiological resilience often results in a lower tolerance for anesthesia and surgical stress, contributing to higher morbidity and mortality rates [32]. Although the association was only marginally significant in the multivariate analysis, the inclusion of prematurity in the scoring model is justified by its consistent association with adverse surgical outcomes in neonates, as shown in various global studies [6].
Upper gastrointestinal (GI) anomalies, including esophageal atresia and congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), were associated with nearly a two-fold increase in mortality. These anomalies often require more complex surgical repair and are frequently accompanied by respiratory distress, feeding intolerance, or both [33]. Several studies have identified CDH as a major contributor to neonatal surgical mortality, largely due to severity of associated pulmonary hypoplasia and persistent pulmonary hypertension [34]. Surgical repair of diaphragmatic defects can be performed via either abdominal or thoracic access, with the abdominal route more commonly associated with gastrointestinal complication requiring reoperation [35].
Recent evidence further emphasizes that postoperative outcomes in CDH are strongly determined by the neonate’s baseline clinical condition rather than the surgical approach itself. A recent meta-analysis found no significant difference in morbidity between bedside and operating room repairs, noting instead that bedside procedures were typically performed in critically ill infants [36]. Similarly, a 2025 meta-analysis comparing thoracoscopic and open repair of CDH concluded that thoracoscopy was preferentially performed in neonates with lower morbidity, whereas open repair was more often applied in critically ill patients [37]. These findings support the concept that surgical decision-making for CDH is often driven by illness severity, which in turn explains the higher mortality observed in this subgroup.
Esophageal atresia has likewise been consistently recognized as a significant risk factor for mortality in neonates undergoing surgery [4]. These neonates often require meticulous preoperative stabilization and staged surgical correction and remain prone to complications such as anastomotic leaks, strictures, and aspiration pneumonia [23]. Beyond the perioperative period, a recent comprehensive review on long-term outcomes of CDH survivors emphasized persistent risks of chronic lung disease, gastrointestinal morbidity, and neurodevelopmental impairment, underscoring the broader burden of upper GI anomalies beyond the immediate postoperative phase [38]. Taken together, these findings support the inclusion of upper GI anomalies as a key prognostic factor in mortality risk models, as they consistently present with greater surgical complexity, higher preoperative instability, and more prolonged postoperative vulnerability compared to lower GI anomalies.
The scoring system developed in this study, the FILLA score, offers a pragmatic tool for early mortality prediction in neonatal surgical care. With an AUC of 0.840, it demonstrated comparable discriminatory performance to other neonatal scoring systems, such as the SNAP-II (AUC 0.894), but with fewer and exclusively preoperative variables [39]. This simplicity enhances its feasibility for bedside application in resource-limited settings. Potential integrations into neonatal care pathways includes use at NICU admission for risk stratification, preoperative surgical counseling, and early family discussion regarding prognosis. Furthermore, the FILLA score may be adapted into digital decision-support tools, such as mobile applications or electronic calculators, to facilitate rapid bedside assessment.
This study has several limitations. First, the cohort comprised a heterogeneous group of CGIAs, with varying severity and prognosis, which may introduce selection bias. Our aim, however, was not to compare outcomes between specific anomalies, but rather to identify broadly applicable preoperative predictors across the CGIAs spectrum. Second, neonates who died within 24 h postoperatively were excluded to reduce confounding from extreme perioperative instability; nonetheless, this exclusion may have led to an underestimation of the true perioperative mortality risk. Third, potentially relevant variables—including timing of presentation and surgery, nutritional status, antenatal diagnosis, socioeconomic background, and access to advanced NICU care—were not consistently available in our retrospective dataset. Fourth, surgical characteristics such as procedure type and duration, intraoperative blood loss, transfusions, and postoperative complications (e.g., anastomosis leak or surgical site infection) were not incorporated because of incomplete and inconsistent documentation. While this reduced granularity, our primary goal was to design a prognostic tool based solely on simple, readily available preoperative variables that can be applied in resource-limited settings. Future multicenter prospective studies with more comprehensive perioperative data collection are needed to validate the FILLA score and enhance its predictive accuracy and clinical utility.

5. Conclusions

We developed a simple and clinically applicable prognostic scoring system, the FILLA score, to predict postoperative mortality in neonates with congenital gastrointestinal anomalies. The score incorporates four independent predictors, neonatal sepsis, need for mechanical ventilation, prematurity, and upper gastrointestinal anomalies, and demonstrated good discriminatory performance. By relying exclusively on preoperative clinical parameters, the FILLA score provides a pragmatic tool for early risk stratification, guiding perioperative management, and supporting family counseling, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Prospective multicenter validation will be essential to confirm its generalizability, optimize risk thresholds, and potentially integrate the score into digital decision-support platforms for neonatal surgical care.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.R.S. and E.R.W.; methodology, F.R.S., E.R.W. and L.E.R.; software, E.R.W.; investigation, F.R.S., E.R.W., D.H. and N.A.E.; data curation, E.R.W.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R.W.; writing—review and editing, F.R.S. and E.R.W.; supervision, L.E.R., A.P., F.A.K. and T.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethical Committee of Hasan Sadikin General Hospital in Bandung, Indonesia (protocol code: DP.04.03/D.XIV.6.5/324/2025) on 16 July 2025.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the observational nature of the study, full personal data confidentiality, and a fatal outcome of hospitalization in all cases.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank all the doctors from Hasan Sadikin General Hospital who treated all the patients, and the children who gave their clinical information.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AGAAppropriate for gestational age
AUCArea under the curve
CDHCongenital diaphragmatic hernia
CGIAsCongenital gastrointestinal anomalies
CPAPContinuous positive airway pressure
CRPC-reactive proteins
FILLAFour Indicators Linked to Lethality in Abnormalities
GIGastrointestinal
LGALarge for gestational age
LMICsLow- and middle-income countries
NICUNeonatal Intensive Care Unit
ROCReceiver operating characteristics
SGASmall for gestational age
SNAP-IIScores for Neonatal Acute Physiology-II

References

  1. Abrahams, I.; de Vos, C.; Van Wyk, L. The Outcomes of Specific Surgically Correctable Congenital Gastro-Intestinal Malformations at a Tertiary Level Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in South Africa. J. Neonatal Surg. 2024, 13, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Black, A.J.; Lu, D.Y.; Yefet, L.S.; Baird, R. Sex Differences in Surgically Correctable Congenital Anomalies: A Systematic Review. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2020, 55, 811–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Al-Dewik, N.; Samara, M.; Younes, S.; Al-jurf, R.; Nasrallah, G.; Al-Obaidly, S.; Salama, H.; Olukade, T.; Hammuda, S.; Marlow, N.; et al. Prevalence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Major Congenital Anomalies: A Population-Based Register Study. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zeng, F.T.A.; Mbaye, P.A.; Gueye, D.; Seck, N.F.; Wellé, I.B.; Niang, R.; Diedhiou, Y.; Fall, M.; Ndoye, N.A.; Sagna, A.; et al. Factors Associated with Mortality in Congenital Malformations of the Gastrointestinal Tract in a Tertiary Center in Senegal. World J. Pediatr. Surg. 2023, 6, e000463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ammar, S.; Sellami, S.; Sellami, I.; Ben Hamad, A.; Hbaieb, M.; Jarraya, A.; Charfi, M.; Ben Dhaou, M.; Gargouri, A.; Mhiri, R. Risk Factors of Early Mortality after Neonatal Surgery in Tunisia. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2020, 55, 2233–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Camara, S.; Fall, M.; Mbaye, P.A.; Wese, S.F.; Lo, F.B.; Oumar, N. Congenital Malformations of the Gastrointestinal Tract in Neonates at Aristide Le Dantec University Hospital in Dakar: Concerning 126 Cases. Afr. J. Paediatr. Surg. 2022, 19, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Peters, N.J.; Dogra, S.; Yaddanapudi, S.; Mahajan, J.K. Perioperative Fluid and Electrolyte Management in Surgical Neonates. J. Neonatal Surg. 2024, 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kumar, R.; Addagatla, R.; Jaglan, S.K.; Divya, G.; Jaju, R.; Debnath, P.R.; Sen, A.; Shah, S. Sepsis Screening of Neonatal Abdominal Surgery and Its Outcomes. J. Indian Assoc. Pediatr. Surg. 2022, 27, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hasan, M.S.; Islam, N.; Mitul, A.R. Neonatal Surgical Morbidity and Mortality at a Single Tertiary Center in a Low- and Middle-Income Country: A Retrospective Study of Clinical Outcomes. Front. Surg. 2022, 9, 817528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chawdhary, S.; Panigrahi, P.K.; Sharma, K.; Yadav, M.; Ranjan, R.; Mishra, A.; Kumar, D.; Gaur, S.K.; Ashish, A.; Sharma, S.P. Prognostic Role of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein in Surgical Neonates: A Single-Institution Experience. Cureus 2022, 14, e28319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gomella, T.; Bushee, J.; Cordani, U.G.; Kawashita, K.; Reynolds, J.H.; Almeida, F.F.M.D.E.; de Almeida, F.F.M.; Hasui, Y.; de Brito Neves, B.B.; Fuck, R.A.; et al. Gomella’s Neonatology Management, Procedures, On-Call Problems, Diseases, and Drugs, 8th ed.; Gomella, T.L., Eyal, F.G., Bany-Mohammed, F., Eds.; McGraw Hill Education: Columbus, OH, USA, 2020; ISBN 9789896540821. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zahid, M.; Ullah, I.; Hussain, I.; Ullah Khan, A.; Wahid, F. Predictive Value of Serum Albumin Levels for Prognosis of Severe Sepsis in Late Preterm Neonates Admitted in NICU. J. Med. Health Sci. Rev. 2025, 2, 1776–1803. [Google Scholar]
  13. Aslamzai, M.; Danish, Y.; Hakimi, T.; Jawadi, B. Evaluation of the Factors Associated with Anemia in Neonates Admitted to the Neonatal Unit of Maiwand Teaching Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study. Glob. Pediatr. 2024, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aydın, M.; Özeren, I.; Orman, A.; Benli, S.; Hakan, N.; Taşkın, E. Clinical and Laboratory Features of Culture-Positive Neonatal Sepsis: A 5-Year Single-Center Experience at Tertiary Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Turkey. J. Dr. Behcet Uz Child. Hosp. 2024, 14, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jane Wright, N.; Leather, A.J.; Ade-Ajayi, N.; Sevdalis, N.; Davies, J.; Poenaru, D.; Ameh, E.; Ademuyiwa, A.; Lakhoo, K.; Rose Smith, E.; et al. Mortality from Gastrointestinal Congenital Anomalies at 264 Hospitals in 74 Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Multicentre, International, Prospective Cohort Study. Lancet 2021, 398, 325–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Corebima, B.R.V.C.; Sulistijono, E.; Widanto, W.; Choe, C.F. Factors Associated with Infection and Mortality in Neonates Following Abdominal Surgery. Paediatr. Indones. 2023, 63, S8–S13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sampurna, M.T.A.; Handayani, K.D.; Utomo, M.T.; Angelika, D.; Etika, R.; Harianto, A.; Mapindra, M.P.; Mahindra, M.P.; Efendi, F.; Kaban, R.K.; et al. Determinants of Neonatal Deaths in Indonesia: A National Survey Data Analysis of 10,838 Newborns. Heliyon 2023, 9, e12980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jerry, A.L.; Amboiram, P.; Balakrishnan, U.; Chandrasekaran, A.; Agarwal, P.; Devi, U. Clinical Profile, Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality in Neonates Operated for Gastrointestinal Anomalies in a Tertiary Neonatal Care Unit—An Observational Study. J. Indian Assoc. Pediatr. Surg. 2022, 27, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mahmoud, H.A.H.; Parekh, R.; Dhandibhotla, S.; Sai, T.; Pradhan, A.; Alugula, S.; Cevallos-Cueva, M.; Hayes, B.K.; Athanti, S.; Abdin, Z.; et al. Insight Into Neonatal Sepsis: An Overview. Cureus 2023, 15, e45530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kharrat, A.; Jain, A. Hemodynamic Dysfunction in Neonatal Sepsis. Pediatr. Res. 2022, 91, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Deguchi, K.; Tazuke, Y.; Matsuura, R.; Nomura, M.; Yamanaka, H.; Soh, H.; Yoneda, A. Factors Associated with Adverse Outcomes Following Duodenal Atresia Surgery in Neonates: A Retrospective Study. Cureus 2022, 14, e22349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Athmananda, C.; Mahendrappa, K.B.; Unki, P.; Kumar, H.; Kerudi, M.P.; Babu, K.T. Predictive Value of CRP and Albumin Ratio in Neonatal Sepsis. Int. J. Contemp. Pediatr. 2023, 10, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Petroze, R.T.; Puligandla, P.S. Preoperative Cardiopulmonary Evaluation in Specific Neonatal Surgery. Semin. Pediatr. Surg. 2019, 28, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Adane, T.; Worku, M.; Tigabu, A.; Aynalem, M. Hematological Abnormalities in Culture Positive Neonatal Sepsis. Pediatr. Health Med. Ther. 2022, 13, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kariniotaki, C.; Thomou, C.; Gkentzi, D.; Panteris, E.; Dimitriou, G.; Hatzidaki, E. Neonatal Sepsis: A Comprehensive Review. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Weiss, S.L.; Fitzgerald, J.C. Pediatric Sepsis Diagnosis, Management, and Sub-Phenotypes. Pediatrics 2024, 153, e2023062967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rangelova, V.; Kevorkyan, A.; Raycheva, R.; Krasteva, M. Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit—Incidence and Strategies for Prevention. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Bharathi, K.S.; Pruthi, G.; Lathashree, S.; Simha, P. The Bacteriological and Clinical Outcomes of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Post-Cardiac Surgery in the Pediatric Surgical Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective, Observational Study. Bali J. Anesthesiol. 2022, 6, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Skertich, N.J.; Ingram, M.-C.E.; Ritz, E.; Shah, A.N.; Raval, M.V. The Influence of Prematurity on Neonatal Surgical Morbidity and Mortality. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2020, 55, 2608–2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Halilbašić, A.; Skokić, F.; Hotić, N.; Husarić, E.; Suljendić, S. Preoperative Predictive Factors in the Surgical Treatment of Congenital Gastrointestinal Anomalies. Acta Medica Salin. 2014, 42, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mehl, S.C.; Portuondo, J.I.; Pettit, R.W.; Fallon, S.C.; Wesson, D.E.; Shah, S.R.; Vogel, A.M.; Lopez, M.E.; Massarweh, N.N. Association of Prematurity with Complications and Failure to Rescue in Neonatal Surgery. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2022, 57, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McGregor, K.; McConnell, C. Principles of Anaesthesia for Term Neonates. Anaesth. Intensive Care Med. 2023, 24, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, K.K.; Edwards, M.J. Delayed Presentation of a Right Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Following Left Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair in Infancy. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2023, 105, 108020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zani, A.; Chung, W.K.; Deprest, J.; Harting, M.T.; Jancelewicz, T.; Kunisaki, S.M.; Patel, N.; Antounians, L.; Puligandla, P.S.; Keijzer, R. Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2022, 8, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Catré, D.; Lopes, M.F.; Madrigal, A.; Oliveiros, B.; Cabrita, A.S.; Viana, J.S.; Neves, J.F. Predictors of Major Postoperative Complications in Neonatal Surgery. Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2013, 40, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Cassaro, F.; Impellizzeri, P.; Maiorana, M.; Romeo, C.; Arena, S. Bedside vs Conventional Operating Room Surgery in Critically Ill Newborns: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2025, 60, 162419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aljuhani, A.; Alsumaili, A.A.; Alyaseen, E.M.; Daak, L.I.; Esmail, A.; Alzohari, J.E.; Alqahtani, A.; Junaidallah, E.A.; Alghamdi, H.A.; Saeedi, F. Minimally Invasive Approach Versus Traditional Approach for Treating Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus 2025, 17, e77596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cimbak, N.; Buchmiller, T.L. Long-Term Follow-up of Patients with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia. World J. Pediatr. Surg. 2024, 7, e000758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ganguly, S.; Sarkar, U.K.; Das, S.; Das, G.; Rai, A. Mortality Risk Assessment by SNAP-II and SNAPPE-II among Very Low Birth Weight Newborns—An Observational Study. Indian J. Neonatal Med. Res. 2024, 12, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. ROC curve. The scoring has a good discrimination (AUC = 0.840; CI 95% = 0.795–0.886; p < 0.001).
Figure 1. ROC curve. The scoring has a good discrimination (AUC = 0.840; CI 95% = 0.795–0.886; p < 0.001).
Children 12 01313 g001
Table 1. Subject characteristics of neonates with CGIAs who underwent surgery.
Table 1. Subject characteristics of neonates with CGIAs who underwent surgery.
VariableDied (n = 121)Survived (n = 161)p-ValueOR
Gestational age (weeks)
Median (range)37 (28–40)38 (28–42)
<324 (1.4%)4 (1.4%)0.3741.891
32–3762 (22.0%)53 (18.8%)0.0012.212
>3755 (19.5%)104 (36.9%)
Birth weight (g)
Median (range)2500 (1100–3900)2800 (1100–3800)
<15002 (1.0%)2 (1.0%)0.5381.848
1500–249953 (19.1%)37 (13.3%)<0.0012.648
≥250066 (34.4%)122 (63.5%)
Fetal growth
SGA13 (4.6%)17 (6.0%)0.9321.017
LGA5 (1.8%)7 (2.5%)0.9650.950
AGA103 (36.5%)137 (48.6%)
Sex
Male66 (23.4%)104 (36.9%)0.0880.658
Female55 (19.5%)57 (20.2%)
Referral status
Yes94 (33.3%)136 (48.2%)0.1460.640
No27 (9.6%)25 (8.9%)
Congenital heart disease
Yes29 (10.3%)18 (6.4%)0.0042.504
No92 (32.6%)143 (50.7%)
Abbreviations: SGA, small for gestational age; LGA, large for gestational age; AGA, appropriate for gestational age; n, number of patients; OR, odds ratio.
Table 2. Mortality in CGIAs.
Table 2. Mortality in CGIAs.
Types of CGIAsDied (%)Survived (%)Total (%)
Anorectal malformation24 (8.5)99 (35.1)123 (43.6)
Esophageal atresia32 (11.3)5 (1.8)37 (13.1)
Duodenal atresia19 (6.7)17 (6.0)36 (12.8)
Gastroschisis14 (5.0)11 (3.9)25 (8.9)
Annular pancreas8 (2.8)7 (2.5)15 (5.3)
Jejunoileal atresia9 (3.2)1 (0.4)10 (3.5)
Diaphragmatic hernia3 (1.1)7 (2.5)10 (3.5)
Ileal atresia4 (1.4)4 (1.4)8 (2.8)
Hirschsprung1 (0.4)4 (1.4)5 (1.8)
Malrotation and volvulus3 (1.1)1 (0.4)4 (1.4)
Omphalocele1 (0.4)2 (0.7)3 (1.1)
Jejunal atresia2 (0.7)0 (0)2 (0.7)
Hypertrophic pyloric stenosis1 (0.4)1 (0.4)2 (0.7)
Congenital band0 (0)1 (0.4)1 (0.4)
Duodenal web0 (0)1 (0.4)1 (0.4)
Table 3. Bivariate analysis of each variable to mortality.
Table 3. Bivariate analysis of each variable to mortality.
VariableDied (n = 121)Survived (n = 161)p-ValueORCI 95%
Gestational age (weeks)
<3739 (13.8%)28 (9.9%)0.0042.2591.293–3.947
>3782 (29.1%)133 (47.2%)
Birth weight (g)
1500–249955 (19.5%)39 (13.8%)<0.0012.6071.569–4.332
≥250066 (23.4%)122 (43.3%)
Fetal growth
SGA13 (4.8%)17 (6.3%)0.9651.0170.473–2.188
AGA103 (40.9%)137 (54.4%)
Fetal growth
LGA5 (2.0%)7 (2.8%)0.9320.9500.293–3.079
AGA103 (40.9%)137 (54.4%)
Associated congenital anomalies
Yes44 (15.6%)31 (11.0%)0.0012.3961.398–4.109
No77 (27.3%)130 (46.1%)
Mechanical ventilation
Yes83 (29.4%)34 (12.1%)<0.0018.1594.759–13.987
No38 (13.5%)127 (45.0%)
Neonatal sepsis
Yes107 (37.9%)64 (22.7%)<0.00111.5846.106–21.974
No14 (5.0%)97 (34.4%)
Types of CGIAs
Upper62 (22.0%)39 (13.8%)<0.0013.2871.980–5.458
Lower59 (20.9%)122 (43.3%)
Types of surgery
Emergency59 (20.9%)77 (27.3%)0.8771.0380.648–1.664
Definitive62 (22.0%)84 (29.8%)
Electrolyte imbalance
Yes102 (36.2%)114 (40.4%)0.0082.2131.219–4.017
No19 (6.7%)47 (16.7%)
Leukopenia
Yes52 (18.4%)70 (24.8%)0.9330.9800.609–1.577
No69 (24.5%)91 (32.3%)
Elevated CRP
Yes68 (24.1%)77 (27.3%)0.1641.4000.871–2.248
No53 (18.8%)84 (29.8%)
Hypoalbuminemia
Yes75 (26.6%)88 (31.2%)0.2181.3530.836–2.187
No46 (16.3%)73 (25.9%)
Decreased hematocrit
Yes45 (16.0%)48 (17.0%)0.1921.3940.846–2.298
No76 (27.0%)113 (40.1%)
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; n, number of patients; OR, odds ratio.
Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression for postoperative mortality predictors.
Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression for postoperative mortality predictors.
VariableAOR95% CIp-Value
Neonatal sepsis6.843.42–13.71<0.001 *
Mechanical ventilation4.612.54–8.37<0.001 *
Prematurity1.960.99–3.890.055
Upper GI anomaly1.830.99–3.370.051
AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; * p < 0.05.
Table 5. FILLA score in predicting postoperative mortality in neonates with CGIAs.
Table 5. FILLA score in predicting postoperative mortality in neonates with CGIAs.
NoPredictorScore
1Neonatal sepsis3
2Mechanical ventilation3
3Prematurity1
4Upper GI anomaly1
Total score8
Table 6. Risk stratification based on prognostic score and associated mortality.
Table 6. Risk stratification based on prognostic score and associated mortality.
Risk CategoryScorePredicted Mortality (%)
Low risk014.7
Moderate risk169.1
High risk≥2>96.7
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Suryaningrat, F.R.; Wulandari, E.R.; Hudayari, D.; Ediwan, N.A.; Rakhmilla, L.E.; Kadi, F.A.; Primadi, A.; Yuniati, T. Predicting Postoperative Mortality in Neonates with Congenital Gastrointestinal Anomalies: Development of a Prognostic Scoring System. Children 2025, 12, 1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101313

AMA Style

Suryaningrat FR, Wulandari ER, Hudayari D, Ediwan NA, Rakhmilla LE, Kadi FA, Primadi A, Yuniati T. Predicting Postoperative Mortality in Neonates with Congenital Gastrointestinal Anomalies: Development of a Prognostic Scoring System. Children. 2025; 12(10):1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101313

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suryaningrat, Filla Reviyani, Eka Rizki Wulandari, Devatri Hudayari, Natasha Amalda Ediwan, Lulu Eva Rakhmilla, Fiva Aprilia Kadi, Aris Primadi, and Tetty Yuniati. 2025. "Predicting Postoperative Mortality in Neonates with Congenital Gastrointestinal Anomalies: Development of a Prognostic Scoring System" Children 12, no. 10: 1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101313

APA Style

Suryaningrat, F. R., Wulandari, E. R., Hudayari, D., Ediwan, N. A., Rakhmilla, L. E., Kadi, F. A., Primadi, A., & Yuniati, T. (2025). Predicting Postoperative Mortality in Neonates with Congenital Gastrointestinal Anomalies: Development of a Prognostic Scoring System. Children, 12(10), 1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101313

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop