Literature DB >> 23131463

The pelvic floor complication scale: a new instrument for reconstructive pelvic surgery.

Robert E Gutman1, Ingrid E Nygaard, Wen Ye, David D Rahn, Matthew D Barber, Halina M Zyczynski, Leslie Rickey, Charles W Nager, R Edward Varner, Kimberly Kenton, Kimberly J Dandreo, Holly E Richter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a unique, new pelvic floor surgery complication scale and compare it with an existing validated measure. STUDY
DESIGN: Surgeons from 2 clinical trials networks rated complications based on perceived patient bother, severity, and duration of disability to develop a pelvic floor complication scale (PFCS). PFCS scores were calculated for subjects in 2 multicenter pelvic floor surgical trials. The PFCS and modified Clavien-Dindo scores were evaluated for associations with length of hospitalization, satisfaction, and quality-of-life measures (health utilities index, short form-36, urogenital distress inventory, and incontinence impact questionnaire).
RESULTS: We calculated PFCS scores for 977 subjects. Higher PFCS and Clavien-Dindo scores similarly were associated with longer length of hospitalization (P < .01), lower satisfaction (P < .01), lower Health Utilities Index scores (P = .02), lower short form-36 scores (P = .02), higher urogenital distress Inventory scores (P < .01), and incontinence impact questionnaire scores (P < .01) at 3 months. No associations were present at 1 year.
CONCLUSION: The PFCS compares favorably to the validated modified Clavien-Dindo instrument.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23131463      PMCID: PMC3568397          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  9 in total

1.  Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P A Clavien; J R Sanabria; S M Strasberg
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.982

2.  Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence.

Authors:  Holly E Richter; Michael E Albo; Halina M Zyczynski; Kimberly Kenton; Peggy A Norton; Larry T Sirls; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Gary E Lemack; Kimberly J Dandreo; R Edward Varner; Shawn Menefee; Chiara Ghetti; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Salil Khandwala; Thomas A Rozanski; Harry Johnson; Joseph Schaffer; Anne M Stoddard; Robert L Holley; Charles W Nager; Pamela Moalli; Elizabeth Mueller; Amy M Arisco; Marlene Corton; Sharon Tennstedt; T Debuene Chang; E Ann Gormley; Heather J Litman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications.

Authors:  Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan; William G Hawkins
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.

Authors:  Pierre A Clavien; Jeffrey Barkun; Michelle L de Oliveira; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Daniel Dindo; Richard D Schulick; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Ksenija Slankamenac; Claudio Bassi; Rolf Graf; René Vonlanthen; Robert Padbury; John L Cameron; Masatoshi Makuuchi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence.

Authors:  Linda Brubaker; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Paul Fine; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Halina Zyczynski; Morton B Brown; Anne M Weber
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-04-13       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Patient preparedness: an important predictor of surgical outcome.

Authors:  Kimberly Kenton; Thythy Pham; Elizabeth Mueller; Linda Brubaker
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce urinary stress incontinence.

Authors:  Michael E Albo; Holly E Richter; Linda Brubaker; Peggy Norton; Stephen R Kraus; Philippe E Zimmern; Toby C Chai; Halina Zyczynski; Ananias C Diokno; Sharon Tennstedt; Charles Nager; L Keith Lloyd; MaryPat FitzGerald; Gary E Lemack; Harry W Johnson; Wendy Leng; Veronica Mallett; Anne M Stoddard; Shawn Menefee; R Edward Varner; Kimberly Kenton; Pam Moalli; Larry Sirls; Kimberly J Dandreo; John W Kusek; Leroy M Nyberg; William Steers
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-05-21       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gouri B Diwadkar; Matthew D Barber; Benjamin Feiner; Christopher Maher; J Eric Jelovsek
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

  9 in total
  8 in total

1.  Gaining the patient perspective on pelvic floor disorders' surgical adverse events.

Authors:  Gena C Dunivan; Andrew L Sussman; J Eric Jelovsek; Vivian Sung; Uduak U Andy; Alicia Ballard; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cindy L Amundsen; Christopher J Chermansky; Carla M Bann; Donna Mazloomdoost; Rebecca G Rogers
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Development of a Simplified Patient-Centered Pelvic Floor Surgery Complication Scale.

Authors:  Jocelyn Fitzgerald; Holly E Richter; Vivian Sung; Gena Dunivan; Mihriye Mete; Robert E Gutman
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 1.913

3.  Follow-up of mesh complications using the IUGA/ICS category-time-site coding classification.

Authors:  H F Bontje; G van de Pol; H J van der Zaag-Loonen; W A Spaans
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Postoperative appointments: which ones count?

Authors:  Margaret G Mueller; Dana Elborno; Bhumy A Davé; Alix Leader-Cramer; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Kimberly Kenton
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Development of a Patient-Centered Pelvic Floor Complication Scale.

Authors:  Jocelyn Fitzgerald; Moiuri Siddique; Jeannine Marie Miranne; Pamela Saunders; Robert Gutman
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.913

6.  How Women Perceive Severity of Complications after Pelvic Floor Repair?

Authors:  Anne-Cécile Pizzoferrato; Stéphanie Ragot; Louis Vérité; Nicolas Naiditch; Xavier Fritel
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.964

7.  A longitudinal qualitative evaluation of patient perspectives of adverse events after pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Gena C Dunivan; Brenna L McGuire; Heidi A Rishel Brakey; Yuko M Komesu; Rebecca G Rogers; Andrew L Sussman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  The Design of a Prospective Trial to Evaluate the Role of Preoperative Frailty Assessment in Older Women Undergoing Surgery for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: The FASt Supplemental Trial.

Authors:  Elisabeth Erekson; Shawn Menefee; Ryan E Whitworth; Cindy L Amundsen; Lily A Arya; Yuko M Komesu; Cecile A Ferrando; Halina M Zyczynski; Vivian W Sung; David D Rahn; Jasmine Tan-Kim; Donna Mazloomdoost; Marie G Gantz; Holly E Richter
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 1.913

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.