IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0245774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One-month recovery profile and prevalence and predictors of quality of recovery after painful day case surgery: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Björn Stessel
  • Maarten Hendrickx
  • Caroline Pelckmans
  • Gerrit De Wachter
  • Bart Appeltans
  • Geert Braeken
  • Jeroen Herbots
  • Elbert Joosten
  • Marc Van de Velde
  • Wolfgang F F A Buhre

Abstract

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to study one-month recovery profile and to identify predictors of Quality of Recovery (QOR) after painful day surgery and investigate the influence of pain therapy on QOR. Methods/Design: This is a secondary analysis of a single-centre, randomised controlled trial of 200 patients undergoing ambulatory haemorrhoid surgery, arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery, or inguinal hernia repair between January 2016 and March 2017. Primary endpoints were one-month recovery profile and prevalence of poor/good QOR measured by the Functional Recovery Index (FRI), the Global Surgical Recovery index and the EuroQol questionnaire at postoperative day (POD) 1 to 4, 7, 14 and 28. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of QOR at POD 7, 14, and 28. Differences in QOR between pain treatment groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Four weeks after haemorrhoid surgery, inguinal hernia repair, arthroscopic knee and arthroscopic shoulder surgery, good QOR was present in 71%, 76%, 57% and 24% respectively. Poor QOR was present in 5%, 0%, 7% and 29%, respectively. At POD 7 and POD 28, predictors for poor/intermediate QOR were type of surgery and a high postoperative pain level at POD 4. Male gender was another predictor at POD 7. Female gender and having a paid job were also predictors at POD 28. Type of surgery and long term fear of surgery were predictors at POD 14. No significant differences in total FRI scores were found between the two different pain treatment groups. Conclusions: The present study shows a procedure-specific variation in recovery profile in the 4-week period after painful day surgery. The best predictors for short-term (POD 7) and long-term (POD 28) poor/intermediate QOR were a high postoperative pain level at POD 4 and type of surgery. Different pain treatment regimens did not result in differences in recovery profile. Trial registration: European Union Clinical Trials Register 2015-003987-35.

Suggested Citation

  • Björn Stessel & Maarten Hendrickx & Caroline Pelckmans & Gerrit De Wachter & Bart Appeltans & Geert Braeken & Jeroen Herbots & Elbert Joosten & Marc Van de Velde & Wolfgang F F A Buhre, 2021. "One-month recovery profile and prevalence and predictors of quality of recovery after painful day case surgery: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245774
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245774
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245774&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0245774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Agt, Heleen M. E. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1994. "Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 1537-1544, December.
    2. Mark Mitchell, 2015. "Home recovery following day surgery: a patient perspective," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3-4), pages 415-427, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    2. Eun-Young Jun & Hyunjin Oh, 2017. "Patient Needs and Satisfaction With Nursing Care After Day Surgery Based on a Patient-Centered Care Framework," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 301-317, June.
    3. Richard Holland & Richard D Smith & Ian Harvey & Louise Swift & Elizabeth Lenaghan, 2004. "Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ‐5D and AQoL," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 793-805, August.
    4. Christopher J.L. Murray & Alan D. Lopez, 2000. "Progress and directions in refining the Global Burden of Disease approach: a response to Williams," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 69-82, January.
    5. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    6. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    7. Paul F.M. Krabbe & Marie-Louise Essink-Bot & Gouke J. Bonsel, 1996. "On the Equivalence of Collectively and Individually Collected Responses," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 120-132, June.
    8. David Batalla-Martín & Angel Belzunegui-Eraso & Eva Miralles Garijo & Elena Martínez Martín & Rosanna Romaní Garcia & Jacobo San Miguel Heras & Marina Lopez-Ruiz & Maria Antonia Martorell-Poveda, 2020. "Insomnia in Schizophrenia Patients: Prevalence and Quality of Life," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    9. Zsombor Zrubka & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Zoltán Hermann & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Fanni Rencz & Petra Baji & Dominik Golicki & Valentina Prevolnik-Rupel & Márta Péntek, 2019. "A comparison of European, Polish, Slovenian and British EQ-5D-3L value sets using a Hungarian sample of 18 chronic diseases," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 119-132, June.
    10. Antonio Cuesta-Vargas & Jaime Martin-Martin & Manuel Gonzalez-Sanchez & Jose Antonio Merchan-Baeza & David Perez-Cruzado, 2020. "Identification of Tools for the Functional and Subjective Assessment of Patients in an Aquatic Environment: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Wolfgang Greiner & Tom Weijnen & Martin Nieuwenhuizen & Siem Oppe & Xavier Badia & Jan Busschbach & Martin Buxton & Paul Dolan & Paul Kind & Paul Krabbe & Arto Ohinmaa & David Parkin & Montserat Roset, 2003. "A single European currency for EQ-5D health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 4(3), pages 222-231, September.
    12. Paul F. M. Krabbe & Elly A. Stolk & Nancy J. Devlin & Feng Xie & Elise H. Quik & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 967-977, November.
    13. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 2000. "Will our understanding of completeness ever be complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(8), pages 729-731, December.
    14. Brooks, Richard AU -, 1996. "EuroQol: the current state of play," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 53-72, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.