Caroline A Brandon1,2, Steven Friedman3, Nirit Rosenblum4,5, Christina M Escobar4,5, Lauren E Stewart4,5, Benjamin M Brucker4,5. 1. Department of Urology, New York University Langone Health, 222 E. 41st street, 11th Floor, New York, NY, 10017, USA. Care.brandon@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. Care.brandon@gmail.com. 3. Department of Population Health, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Urology, New York University Langone Health, 222 E. 41st street, 11th Floor, New York, NY, 10017, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Surgical recovery is the return to preoperative functional, psychologic, and social activity, or a return to normalcy. To date, little is known about the global post-surgical recovery experience from the patients' perspective. The aim of this study was to validate the Post-Discharge Surgical Recovery scale 13 (PSR13) in women undergoing vaginal prolapse repair procedures and evaluate the patient-perceived postoperative recovery experience over a 12-week period. METHODS: Fifty women undergoing vaginal prolapse repairs completed the PSR13 and global surgical recovery scale (GSR) at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks post-surgery. Validity, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and responsiveness to change over time of the PSR13 was evaluated using descriptive statistics and linear regression models. The proportion of patients deemed fully recovered at each time point (defined as PSR13 score ≥ 80) was also assessed. RESULTS: The PSR13 correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the single-item recovery scale and showed excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α = 0.91, range 0.77 to 0.93). The MCID was estimated at 7.0 points. The PSR13 scores improved at varying rates over time, with the greatest amount of patient-perceived recovery occurring between 4 and 6 weeks after surgery. The proportion of patients deemed fully recovered at 6- and 12- weeks postoperatively was 37% and 56%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PSR13 is a useful instrument to assess overall return to normalcy from the patient's perspective and can be applied to evaluate the recovery experience among women undergoing vaginal prolapse repairs, in both the research and clinical setting.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Surgical recovery is the return to preoperative functional, psychologic, and social activity, or a return to normalcy. To date, little is known about the global post-surgical recovery experience from the patients' perspective. The aim of this study was to validate the Post-Discharge Surgical Recovery scale 13 (PSR13) in women undergoing vaginal prolapse repair procedures and evaluate the patient-perceived postoperative recovery experience over a 12-week period. METHODS: Fifty women undergoing vaginal prolapse repairs completed the PSR13 and global surgical recovery scale (GSR) at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks post-surgery. Validity, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and responsiveness to change over time of the PSR13 was evaluated using descriptive statistics and linear regression models. The proportion of patients deemed fully recovered at each time point (defined as PSR13 score ≥ 80) was also assessed. RESULTS: The PSR13 correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the single-item recovery scale and showed excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α = 0.91, range 0.77 to 0.93). The MCID was estimated at 7.0 points. The PSR13 scores improved at varying rates over time, with the greatest amount of patient-perceived recovery occurring between 4 and 6 weeks after surgery. The proportion of patients deemed fully recovered at 6- and 12- weeks postoperatively was 37% and 56%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PSR13 is a useful instrument to assess overall return to normalcy from the patient's perspective and can be applied to evaluate the recovery experience among women undergoing vaginal prolapse repairs, in both the research and clinical setting.
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: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Emily S Lukacz; Lauren Klein Warren; Holly E Richter; Linda Brubaker; Matthew D Barber; Peggy Norton; Alison C Weidner; John N Nguyen; Marie G Gantz Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Alicia Ballard; Candace Parker-Autry; Chee Paul Lin; Alayne D Markland; David R Ellington; Holly E Richter Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Janet S Carpenter; Michael Heit; Chen X Chen; Ryan Stewart; Jennifer Hamner; Kevin L Rand Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2017 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Michael Heit; Janet S Carpenter; Chen X Chen; Ryan Stewart; Jennifer Hamner; Kevin L Rand Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 1.913