4.3 Article

Physical function and quality of life after thoracoabdominal oesophageal resection - Results of a longitudinal follow-up study

Journal

DIGESTIVE SURGERY
Volume 22, Issue 1-2, Pages 63-68

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000085348

Keywords

thoracoabdominal resection; oesophageal cancer; spirometry; physical function; range of motion; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The long- term functional outcome after thoracoabdominal resection has to be better evaluated. A study was performed to evaluate patients after a similar operation both in terms of physical function and health- related quality of life ( HRQL). Methods: Eighteen patients were evaluated 2 years after a thoracoabdominal resection. Respiratory function, physical performance and range of motion in shoulder, thorax and spine were recorded. HQRL was assessed by EORTC QLQ- C30 ( European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) and EORTC QLQ- OES18 ( Oeophageal module). Results: Two years after surgery, respiratory function ( forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 s) was significantly impaired compared to preoperative values ( p < 0.05). The physical performance was significantly reduced as measured by a functional stand- up test ( p < 0.05) and the handgrip force ( p < 0.001). Shoulder range of motion, thoracic lateral flexion and C7 to wall were within normal ranges, thoracic flexion significantly ;greater ( p < 0.01) but chest expansion significantly de-creased ( p < 0.01) compared to controls. HQRL was comparable to age- and sex- matched population norms for most of the functions. A clinical significant difference was, however, found for diarrhoea, dyspnoea, appetite loss and fatigue. Conclusion: Within a 2- year period, each individual regains most of the respiratory and physical performances and HRQL after a thoracoabdominal resection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available