4.4 Article

Quality of life in nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenoma patients before and after surgical treatment

Journal

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
Volume 154, Issue 10, Pages 1895-1902

Publisher

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-012-1473-3

Keywords

Quality of life; Pituitary adenoma; Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery; QOL transition; SF-36

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenoma (NFMA) is a benign neoplasm that causes visual function disturbances and headaches and can be treated by transsphenoidal surgery (TSS). It is unclear how quality of life (QOL) changes with surgery and which QOL factors are affected by treatment. The aim is to assess the temporal transition of QOL in NFMA patients undergoing TSS and to identify influential factors. The QOL of NFMA patients who underwent endoscopic TSS was investigated with the short-form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire, general health questionnaire 30 (GHQ30), and numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain at the following three time points: immediately before, 1 month after, and 6 months after surgery. Twenty-four of 30 patients had visual deterioration. The SF-36 baseline value of visual function-impaired NFMA patients was lower than that of the normal population. SF-36 results showed that physical summary scores decreased at 1 month after the operation, but recovered up to the normal population level by 6 months. Mental summary scores generally increased at 1 month after surgery and remained stable until 6 months later. The GHQ30 results were similar to the SF-36 mental summary scores. The strongest factor related to the QOL was visual function. The amount of pain and the necessity of hormonal replacement were also influencing factors. The QOL of NFMA patients is affected both physically and mentally by surgical treatment and symptoms. This QOL assessment is important for planning treatment strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available