Literature DB >> 15026915

The Surgical Recovery Index.

M A Talamini1, C L Stanfield, D C Chang, A W Wu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We developed a tool, the Surgical Recovery Index (SRI), specifically to measure surgical recovery. We then tested the ability of the SRI to discriminate between patients undergoing laparoscopic (L) operations and patients undergoing open (O) operations.
METHODS: We surveyed 50 patients drawn from the practice of a single surgeon to establish the types of activities that define recovery from surgery. Their responses were used to construct the SRI, a self-administered questionnaire using a numerical rank-order scale format. A total score and two subscale scores (pain and activity resumption) were calculated for each patient. Mean and median scores were calculated for each patient group. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate group differences for individual questions; t-tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to evaluate group differences for summary scores.
RESULTS: In all, 149 patients completed the SRI (60 L, 89 O). Cronbach's alphas were 0.91 for pain questions and 0.97 for activity resumption questions. The scores for pain level with time (L vs O, 1-10 scale) at week 1 (mean, 4.42 vs 6.06, p = 0.03), week 2 (mean, 3.08 vs 4.38, p = 0.04), week 3 (mean, 2.03 vs 3.16, p = 0.02), and week 4 (mean, 1.18 vs 2.28, p = 0.00) all favored laparoscopy. The scores for pain level with activity (L vs O, 1-3 scale) for getting out of bed (mean, 1.62 vs 1.85, p = 0.04), hygiene activities (mean, 1.38 vs 1.65, p = 0.04), and computer work (mean, 1.15 vs 1.56, p = 0.00) were all significant, although pain with exertion (mean, 1.87 vs 2.10, p = 0.13) was not. Delay until return to activity (L vs O, 1-4 scale) was significant, favoring L for 13 activities (all p < 0.02), but it was not significant for three activities. The scores for subscales for pain (L vs O, mean, 20.7 vs 34.4, respectively) and activity resumption delay (mean, 44.3 vs 62.0), as well as total scores (mean, 33.0 vs 49.0), were also significant (all p = 0.00). The same differences were observed when median scores were considered instead of mean scores, suggesting the robustness of the group difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in time to full recovery (i.e., pain resolution and activity resumption) is a fundamental advantage of laparoscopic surgery, yet there are no tools designed to specifically measure recovery. These data provide preliminary evidence of the reliability and validity of the new SRI as a measure of recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic operations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15026915     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8962-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  13 in total

1.  A cost-minimization analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy.

Authors:  U Berggren; N Zethraeus; D Arvidsson; U Haglund; B Jonsson
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland.

Authors:  C A Steiner; E B Bass; M A Talamini; H A Pitt; E P Steinberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-02-10       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: measurement of longitudinal changes.

Authors:  C M Mangione; L Goldman; E J Orav; E R Marcantonio; A Pedan; L E Ludwig; M C Donaldson; D J Sugarbaker; R Poss; T H Lee
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Quality of life and outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  J J Huang; C J Yeo; T A Sohn; K D Lillemoe; P K Sauter; J Coleman; R H Hruban; J L Cameron
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  D P McKellar; R M Johnson; J A Dutro; J Mellinger; W A Bernie; J B Peoples
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Safety, efficacy, cost, and morbidity of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: a prospective analysis of 228 consecutive patients.

Authors:  J E Kelley; R G Burrus; R P Burns; L D Graham; K E Chandler
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 0.688

7.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new 'gold standard'?

Authors:  N J Soper; P T Stockmann; D L Dunnegan; S W Ashley
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1992-08

8.  The outcomes of elective laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies.

Authors:  R L Kane; N Lurie; C Borbas; N Morris; S Flood; B McLaughlin; G Nemanich; A Schultz
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Measuring quality of life in cosmetic surgery patients with a condition-specific instrument: the Derriford Scale.

Authors:  A Klassen; C Jenkinson; R Fitzpatrick; T Goodacre
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  1998-07

10.  A financial analysis of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy.

Authors:  J Wenner; H Graffner; G Lindell
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  7 in total

1.  Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale.

Authors:  Xue-Shan Bu; Jing Zhang; Yun-Xia Zuo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks.

Authors:  Timothy N Judkins; Dmitry Oleynikov; Nick Stergiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale: a first pilot study.

Authors:  Yusuke Naito; Yuu Tanaka; Noriyuki Sasaoka; Toshio Iwata; Yuko Fujimoto; Nozomi Okamoto; Satoki Inoue; Masahiko Kawaguchi
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of recovery after abdominal surgery: a hypothesized conceptual framework.

Authors:  Roshni Alam; Sabrina M Figueiredo; Saba Balvardi; Bénédicte Nauche; Tara Landry; Lawrence Lee; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Robotic surgery training and performance: identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency.

Authors:  K Narazaki; D Oleynikov; N Stergiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 3.453

6.  Robotic surgery and training: electromyographic correlates of robotic laparoscopic training.

Authors:  T N Judkins; D Oleynikov; K Narazaki; N Stergiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-02-27       Impact factor: 3.453

7.  Development and validation of the Efficacy Safety Score (ESS), a novel tool for postoperative patient management.

Authors:  Erlend Skraastad; Johan Ræder; Vegard Dahl; Lars J Bjertnæs; Vladimir Kuklin
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 2.217

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.