Literature DB >> 27738734

Patient satisfaction and regret with decision differ between outcomes in the composite definition of success after reconstructive surgery.

Waseem Khoder1, Emily Hom2, Anna Guanzon3, Sarah Rose4, Douglass Hale5, Michael Heit5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate patient satisfaction and regret with their decision for reconstructive surgery, and determine if they valued each item equally in the composite definition of success after making the decision for surgery.
METHODS: A list was created including all patients who underwent laparoscopic sacral colpopexy or laparoscopic uterosacrocolpopexy. Patients were placed in mutually exclusive outcome categories (retreatment, symptomatic failure, anatomic failure, and surgical success). Retreatment included any postoperative treatment for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse including pessary use, or surgery for mesh complications. The validated modified Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and the Satisfaction Decision Scale (SDS) questionnaires were administered by telephone. Higher DRS scores indicate greater regret and higher SDS scores indicate greater satisfaction with the decision for surgery.
RESULTS: Of 715 patients, 197 were successfully contacted by telephone following reconstructive surgery and surveyed as study participants. Composite surgical outcomes were available for 150. Information on the need for retreatment was available for all the study participants. Surgery was successful in 101 (67.3 %) of the study participants. Anatomic failure occurred in 14, symptomatic failure occurred in 10, and retreatment was required in 25 of the study participants. Overall, the study participants were more satisfied than regretful with their decision for reconstructive surgery. Regret and satisfaction with their decision differed between outcomes in the composite definition of success after reconstructive surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and patients should focus on retreatment rates during preoperative outcome discussions because retreatment will result in the least satisfaction and greatest regret with the decision for reconstructive surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pelvic organ prolapse; Reconstructive surgery; Regret; Satisfaction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27738734     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3157-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  11 in total

1.  Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Mary Anna Denman; W Thomas Gregory; Sarah H Boyles; Virginia Smith; S Renee Edwards; Amanda L Clark
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Role of composite endpoints as an outcome assessment tool in urogenital prolapse.

Authors:  S Srikrishna; D Robinson; L Cardozo
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale.

Authors:  M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1996 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women.

Authors:  Jennifer M Wu; Camille P Vaughan; Patricia S Goode; David T Redden; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Alayne D Markland
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of women with pelvic floor dysfunction: patient centered goals at 1 year.

Authors:  Kathie L Hullfish; Viktor E Bovbjerg; Matthew J Gurka; William D Steers
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Validation of a decision regret scale.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Annette M O'Connor; Timothy J Wood; Thomas F Hack; Laura Siminoff; Elisa Gordon; Deb Feldman-Stewart
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Validation of decision-making outcomes for female pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Vivian W Sung; Nicole Kauffman; Christina A Raker; Deborah L Myers; Melissa A Clark
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-03-07       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Body image, regret, and satisfaction following colpocleisis.

Authors:  Catrina C Crisp; Nicole M Book; Aimee L Smith; Jacqueline A Cunkelman; Vivian Mishan; Alejandro D Treszezamsky; Sonia R Adams; Costas Apostolis; Lior Lowenstein; Rachel N Pauls
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  2 in total

1.  Counseling in urogynecology: A difficult task, or simply good surgeon-patient communication?

Authors:  Matteo Balzarro; Emanuele Rubilotta; Claudia Goss; Elisabetta Costantini; Walter Artibani; Peter Sand
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Colpocleisis as an obliterative surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: is it still a viable option in the twenty-first century? Narrative review.

Authors:  Magdalena Emilia Grzybowska; Konrad Futyma; Aida Kusiak; Dariusz Grzegorz Wydra
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 1.932

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.