The clinical frailty scale as a predictor of orthopaedic outcomes: a narrative review

•Higher CFS scores are associated with poorer outcomes in orthopaedic patients.•These include increased rates of mortality, length of hospital stay and risk of adverse events post-procedure.•CFS is a strong and often favourable prognostic tool when compared to other frailty scales.•As research accumulates on the CFS, postoperative functional status and mortality, it may refine the consent process due to personalised outcome measures. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a 9-point scaling system used to categorise the frailty of patients. The CFS is well-established as a prognostic tool for decision-making within healthcare settings. However, the relationship between the CFS as a predictor for orthopaedic outcomes is limited. This review aims to provide an overview of the efficacy of the CFS as a prognostic tool for predicting orthopaedic outcomes. Systematic review using PRISMA checklist (PROSPERO registered: CRD42023456648). Ovid and PubMed databases were searched using defined search terms to identify English language papers between 2007 and June 2023 which fit the inclusion criteria. Abstract screening was carried out independently and included studies proceeded to full-text review. 10 studies were identified. Studies used a range of outcome measures to assess success, including gross outcomes like mortality rates, as well as more specific functional outcomes, such as joint functionality scores. Studies identified that higher CFS scores correlate to poorer outcomes within orthopaedic patients. These include higher rates of mortality (41.7 % at one-year post proximal femur fracture for CFS ≥ 7), longer length of hospital stay and increased risk of adverse events post-procedure (both increased linearly from CFS 1 to 4). Additionally, the CFS was shown to be a strong prognostic tool when compared to other frailty scales. The number of studies that evaluated the relationship between the CFS and joint functionality scores is limited. Higher CFS scores are associated with poorer orthopaedic outcomes. However, it is difficult to quantify the true impact due to the limited number of high-quality studies. Further work to characterise the relationship between both gross and functional outcomes associated with the utilisation of the CFS in orthopaedic settings is essential to ascertain the utility of this simple score to improve resource allocation and provide effective consent to patients.