| Literature DB >> 27917457 |
E H H Mommers1,2, D R M Hünen3, J C H M van Hout3, M Guit4, J A Wegdam3, S W Nienhuijs5, T S de Vries Reilingh3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as quality of life (QoL), patient satisfaction, and work impairment, are arguably the most important outcomes of any medical treatment. In 2011, Staerkle and Villiger developed the Core Outcome Measurements Index (COMI) to standardise PROs and PRO measurement for inguinal hernia patients, in an attempt to increase inter-study comparability. The aim of this study is to prospectively evaluate the short- and long-term postoperative QoL, function, patient well-being, pain, and social/work disability, after total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair and to provide the first clinical experience with the COMI-hernia questionnaire.Entities:
Keywords: Function; Pain; Patient well-being; Patient-reported outcome (PRO); Quality of life (QoL); Social and work disability; Total extraperitoneal herniorrhaphy (TEP)
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27917457 PMCID: PMC5281684 DOI: 10.1007/s10029-016-1554-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hernia ISSN: 1248-9204 Impact factor: 4.739
Fig. 1Flow of patients through the study. Asterisk 12 patients were excluded after inclusion, because the surgeon decided to perform a TAPP, Lichtenstein, or Stoppa repair, despite an initial indication for TEP
Demographic characteristics of the study population
| Population size | |
|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) ( | 113/7 |
| Age (median, range) | 61 years (32–86) |
| BMI (median, range) | 25 kg/m2 (18–36) |
| Diabetes type 2 ( | 4 |
| ASA classification ( | ASA I; 8 (48%) |
| ASA II; 56 (47%) | |
| ASA III; 6 (5%) | |
| Operation time (median, range) | 41 min. (12–142) |
| Bilateral inguinal hernia repair ( | 35 (29%) |
Fig. 2Main outcome parameters of the COMI-hernia questionnaire. The average main outcome scores of the COMI-hernia questionnaire reported on a ten-point scale. A higher score correlates with a worse outcome. Asterisk score differs statistically significantly from the previous time of measurement; QoL preop. = 3.2 (SD ± 2.0), QoL 6 weeks postop. = 1.6 (SD ± 1.5), QoL 1 year postop. = 0.3 (SD ± 1.2) (pre vs 6 weeks p < 0.001; 6 weeks vs 1 year p < 0.001). Function preop. = 3.2 (SD ± 2.3), Function 6 weeks postop. = 1.0 (SD ± 1.6), Function 1 year postop. = 0.6 (SD ± 1.4) (pre vs 6 weeks p < 0.001; 6 weeks vs 1 year p = 0.017). Well-being preop. = 8.1 (SD ± 3.0), well-being 6 weeks postop. = 2.4 (SD ± 3.2), well-being 1 years postop. = 1.9 (SD ± 3.2) (pre vs 6 weeks p < 0.001; 6 weeks vs 1 year p = 0.337). Pain preop. VAS = 3.5 (SD ± 2.7), pain 6 weeks postop. = 1.0 (SD ± 1.7), pain 1 year postop. = 0.7 (SD ± 1.7) (pre vs 6 weeks p < 0.001; 6 weeks vs 1 year p = 0.017). So&wo disability preop. = 1.2 (SD ± 1.9), so&wo 6 weeks postop. = 2.1 (SD ± 2.6), so&wo 1 years postop. = 0.3 (SD ± 1.0) (pre vs 6 weeks p < 0.001; 6 weeks vs 1 years p < 0.001)