Ioana Antonescu1, Francesco Carli, Nancy E Mayo, Liane S Feldman. 1. Division of General Surgery, Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650 Cedar Ave, L9.300, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada, ioana.antonescu@mail.mcgill.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgery is evolving, and new techniques are introduced to improve "recovery." Postoperative recovery is complex, and evaluating the effectiveness of surgical innovations requires assessment of patient-reported outcomes. The Short-Form-36 (SF-36), a generic health-related quality of life questionnaire, is the most commonly used instrument in this context. The objective of this study was to contribute evidence for the validity of the SF-36 as a metric of postoperative recovery. METHODS: Data from 128 patients undergoing planned colorectal surgery at one university hospital between 2005 and 2010 were analyzed. In the absence of a gold standard, the responsiveness and construct validity (known groups and convergent) of the SF-36 were evaluated. Standardized response means were computed for the former and non-parametric tests were used to assess the statistical significance of the changes observed. Multiple linear regression was used to determine whether the SF-36 discriminates between patients with versus without complications and between laparoscopic and open surgery (known groups); correlations between the SF-36 and the 6-min walk test, a measure of functional walking capacity (convergent) was investigated with Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: The SF-36 was sensitive to clinically important changes. Scores on six of eight domains and the physical component summary score deteriorated postoperatively (SRM 0.86 for the PCS, p < 0.01) and improved to baseline thereafter. Patients with complications had significantly lower scores on five SF-36 domains (with differences from -9 (-18, -1), p = 0.04 to -18 (-32, -2), p = 0.03), and scores on all subscales were lower than those in a healthy population (p < 0.01 to p = 0.04). The SF-36 did not differentiate between laparoscopic and open surgery. Physical functioning scores correlated with 6MWT distance at 1 and 2 months (Spearman's r = 0.31 and 0.36, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 is responsive to expected physiological changes in the postoperative period, demonstrates construct validity, and thus constitutes a valid measure of postoperative recovery after planned colorectal surgery. The SF-36 did not, however, discriminate between recovery after laparoscopic and open surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Surgery is evolving, and new techniques are introduced to improve "recovery." Postoperative recovery is complex, and evaluating the effectiveness of surgical innovations requires assessment of patient-reported outcomes. The Short-Form-36 (SF-36), a generic health-related quality of life questionnaire, is the most commonly used instrument in this context. The objective of this study was to contribute evidence for the validity of the SF-36 as a metric of postoperative recovery. METHODS: Data from 128 patients undergoing planned colorectal surgery at one university hospital between 2005 and 2010 were analyzed. In the absence of a gold standard, the responsiveness and construct validity (known groups and convergent) of the SF-36 were evaluated. Standardized response means were computed for the former and non-parametric tests were used to assess the statistical significance of the changes observed. Multiple linear regression was used to determine whether the SF-36 discriminates between patients with versus without complications and between laparoscopic and open surgery (known groups); correlations between the SF-36 and the 6-min walk test, a measure of functional walking capacity (convergent) was investigated with Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: The SF-36 was sensitive to clinically important changes. Scores on six of eight domains and the physical component summary score deteriorated postoperatively (SRM 0.86 for the PCS, p < 0.01) and improved to baseline thereafter. Patients with complications had significantly lower scores on five SF-36 domains (with differences from -9 (-18, -1), p = 0.04 to -18 (-32, -2), p = 0.03), and scores on all subscales were lower than those in a healthy population (p < 0.01 to p = 0.04). The SF-36 did not differentiate between laparoscopic and open surgery. Physical functioning scores correlated with 6MWT distance at 1 and 2 months (Spearman's r = 0.31 and 0.36, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 is responsive to expected physiological changes in the postoperative period, demonstrates construct validity, and thus constitutes a valid measure of postoperative recovery after planned colorectal surgery. The SF-36 did not, however, discriminate between recovery after laparoscopic and open surgery.
Authors: Stefan Maartense; Michalda S Dunker; J Frederick Slors; Miguel A Cuesta; Dirk J Gouma; Sander J van Deventer; Ad A van Bodegraven; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kirsten B Kluivers; Ingrid Riphagen; Mark E Vierhout; Hans A M Brölmann; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: W M Hopman; T Towheed; T Anastassiades; A Tenenhouse; S Poliquin; C Berger; L Joseph; J P Brown; T M Murray; J D Adachi; D A Hanley; E Papadimitropoulos Journal: CMAJ Date: 2000-08-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Nicolò Pecorelli; Julio F Fiore; Chelsia Gillis; Rashami Awasthi; Benjamin Mappin-Kasirer; Petru Niculiseanu; Gerald M Fried; Francesco Carli; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Casey J Allen; Danny Yakoub; Francisco Igor Macedo; Austin R Dosch; Jessica Brosch; Vikas Dudeja; Ronda Ayala; Nipun B Merchant Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Andrew M Blakely; Dayana Chanson; F Lennie Wong; Oliver S Eng; Stephen M Sentovich; Kurt A Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Virginia Sun Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Makena Pook; Hiba Elhaj; Charbel El Kefraoui; Saba Balvardi; Nicolo Pecorelli; Lawrence Lee; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 4.584
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
Authors: Margot E Lodge; Chris Moran; Adam D J Sutton; Hui-Ching Lee; Jugdeep K Dhesi; Nadine E Andrew; Darshini R Ayton; David J Hunter-Smith; Velandai K Srikanth; David A Snowdon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Koichi Ogura; Mohamed A Yakoub; Alexander B Christ; Tomohiro Fujiwara; Zarko Nikolic; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Sameer S Apte; Husein Moloo; Ahwon Jeong; Michelle Liu; Lisa Vandemeer; Kathryn Suh; Kednapa Thavorn; Dean A Fergusson; Mark Clemons; Rebecca C Auer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692