Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-12-2014

Effect of perioperative complications and functional outcomes on health-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy

Auteurs: Björn Löppenberg, Christian von Bodman, Marko Brock, Florian Roghmann, Joachim Noldus, Rein Jüri Palisaar

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2014

Abstract

Purpose

Radical prostatectomy is a commonly performed procedure with perioperative complication rates of 30 % using standardized reporting methodology. We aim to determine whether perioperative complications and functional outcomes impact quality of life 1 year after surgical treatment.

Patients and methods

Quality of life, functional and oncological outcomes were assessed in patients who underwent open retropubic radical prostatectomy at a single academic institution between 2003 and 2009, preoperatively and 1 year after surgery using the EORTC QLQ-C30, the IIEF-5 and an institutional questionnaire. Perioperative complications were recorded using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Patients without complications were compared to patients with any, low- or high-grade complications. The global health score domain of the EORTC QLQ-C30 is reported for various oncological and functional outcomes and contrasted to stratified categories of complications and functional outcomes.

Results

A full dataset was available for 29.5 % (n = 856) of all patients. The overall complication rate was 27.5 % (235/856). A total of 307 complications were recorded of whom 88.9 % (273/307) were low grade. In this study, population global health perception did not decline after surgery (70.5 ± 21.2 vs. 74.4 ± 19.7; p < 0.0001). Complications showed only statistical but no clinical meaningful influence on global health perception as well as on functional and symptom scales. Patients who met combined outcome criteria experienced the best postoperative global health score (86.0 ± 13.1 and 86.0 ± 14.2).

Conclusions

Perioperative complications and functional outcomes have a measurable impact on quality of life 1 year following surgery. While perioperative complications have a statistical effect, functional outcomes showed a clinically more profound effect on postoperative global health perception.

vorige artikel Factors associated with quality of life measured by EQ-5D in patients with nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease

volgende artikel Quality of life, alcohol detoxification and relapse: Is quality of life a predictor of relapse or only a secondary outcome measure?

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Eastham, J. A., Scardino, P. T., & Kattan, M. W. (2008). Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: The trifecta nomogram. The Journal of Urology, 179(6), 2207–2210. (discussion 2210-220).PubMedCrossRef

Patel, V. R., Sivaraman, A., Coelho, R. F., Chauhan, S., Palmer, K. J., Orvieto, M. A., et al. (2011). Pentafecta: A new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. European Urology, 59(5), 702–707.PubMedCrossRef

Treiyer, A., Anheuser, P., Butow, Z., & Steffens, J. (2011). A single center prospective study: Prediction of postoperative general quality of life, potency and continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. The Journal of Urology, 185(5), 1681–1685.PubMedCrossRef

Perl, M., Waldmann, A., Pritzkuleit, R., & Katalinic, A. (2012). Temporal changes in quality of life after prostate carcinoma. Der Urologe Ausg A, 51(5), 706–712.PubMedCrossRef

Viklund, P., Lindblad, M., & Lagergren, J. (2005). Influence of surgery-related factors on quality of life after esophageal or cardia cancer resection. World Journal of Surgery, 29(7), 841–848.PubMedCrossRef

Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P.-A. (2004). Classification of surgical complications. Annals of Surgery, 240(2), 205–213.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Novara, G., Ficarra, V., D’Elia, C., Secco, S., Cavalleri, S., & Artibani, W. (2010). Prospective evaluation with standardised criteria for postoperative complications after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. European Urology, 57(3), 363–370.PubMedCrossRef

Hruza, M., Weiss, H. O., Pini, G., Goezen, A. S., Schulze, M., Teber, D., et al. (2010). Complications in 2200 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies: Standardised evaluation and analysis of learning curves. European Urology, 58(5), 733–741.PubMedCrossRef

Rabbani, F., Yunis, L. H., Pinochet, R., Nogueira, L., Vora, K. C., Eastham, J. A., et al. (2010). Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. European Urology, 57(3), 371–386.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Walsh, P. C., & Donker, P. J. (1982). Impotence following radical prostatectomy: Insight into etiology and prevention. The Journal of Urology, 128(3), 492–497.PubMed

11.

Graefen, M., Michl, U. H. G., Heinzer, H., Friedrich, M. G., Eichelberg, C., Haese, A., et al. (2005). Indication, technique and outcome of retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. EAU Update Series, 3(2), 77–85.CrossRef

12.

Rhoden, E. L., Teloken, C., Sogari, P. R., & Vargas Souto, C. A. (2002). The use of the simplified International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool to study the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. International Journal of Impotence Research, 14(4), 245–250.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16(1), 139–144.PubMed

15.

Cocks, K., King, M. T., Velikova, G., de Castro, G., St-James, M. M., Jr, Fayers, P. M., et al. (2012). Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. European Journal of Cancer, 48(11), 1713–1721.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., Bottomley, A., et al. (2001). The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

17.

Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60.CrossRef

18.

Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83.CrossRef

19.

Pearson, K. (1900). On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 50(302), 157–175.CrossRef

20.

Loppenberg, B., Noldus, J., Holz, A., & Palisaar, R. J. (2010). Reporting complications after open radical retropubic prostatectomy using the Martin criteria. The Journal of Urology, 184(3), 944–948.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Schwarz, R., & Hinz, A. (2001). Reference data for the quality of life questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general German population. European Journal of Cancer, 37(11), 1345–1351.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2008). EORTC QLQ-C30 reference values. Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group.

23.

Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P. M., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Using reference data on quality of life—The importance of adjusting for age and gender, exemplified by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+3). European Journal of Cancer, 34(9), 1381–1389.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Waldmann, A., Schubert, D., & Katalinic, A. (2013). Normative data of the EORTC QLQ-C30 for the German population: A population-based survey. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e74149.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

King, M. T. (1996). The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 5(6), 555–567.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Augustin, H., Pummer, K., Daghofer, F., Habermann, H., Primus, G., & Hubmer, G. (2002). Patient self-reporting questionnaire on urological morbidity and bother after radical retropubic prostatectomy. European Urology, 42(2), 112–117.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Giberti, C., Chiono, L., Gallo, F., Schenone, M., & Gastaldi, E. (2009). Radical retropubic prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for low-risk prostatic cancer: A prospective study. World Journal of Urology, 27(5), 607–612.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Barry, M. J., Gallagher, P. M., Skinner, J. S., & Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2012). Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(5), 513–518.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

Malcolm, J. B., Fabrizio, M. D., Barone, B. B., Given, R. W., Lance, R. S., Lynch, D. F., et al. (2010). Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. The Journal of Urology, 183(5), 1822–1828.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Soderdahl, D. W., Davis, J. W., Schellhammer, P. F., Given, R. W., Lynch, D. F., Shaves, M., et al. (2005). Prospective longitudinal comparative study of health-related quality of life in patients undergoing invasive treatments for localized prostate cancer. Journal of Endourology, 19(3), 318–326.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Agarwal, P. K., Sammon, J., Bhandari, A., Dabaja, A., Diaz, M., Dusik-Fenton, S., et al. (2011). Safety profile of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A standardized report of complications in 3317 patients. European Urology, 59(5), 684–698.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). The challenge of response shift for quality-of-life-based clinical oncology research. Annals of Oncology, 10(7), 747–749.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Effect of perioperative complications and functional outcomes on health-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy
Auteurs: Björn Löppenberg
Christian von Bodman
Marko Brock
Florian Roghmann
Joachim Noldus
Rein Jüri Palisaar
Publicatiedatum: 01-12-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0729-1

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2014

Measurement properties of rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality-of-life questionnaires: systematic review of the literature

Psychometric properties and Dutch norm data of the PedsQL Multidimensional Fatigue Scale for Young Adults

Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment

Conceptualizing disability in US national surveys: application of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework

A comparison of three methods of assessing differential item functioning (DIF) in the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale: ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and the Mantel chi-square procedure

Modeling life satisfaction in spinal cord injury: the role of psychological resources