4.6 Article

Quality of life beyond the early postoperative period after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy: the level of patient expectation as the essence of quality of life

Journal

GASTRIC CANCER
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 299-304

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10120-011-0113-6

Keywords

Gastrectomy; Laparoscopy; Stomach neoplasms; Quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of life after the early postoperative period and before reaching 5 years postoperatively between patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (Group A) and patients who underwent open distal subtotal gastrectomy (Group B). The Korean versions of the European Organization for Research and Treatment (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and a gastric cancer-specific module, the EORTC QLQ-STO22, were used to assess the quality of life of 80 patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy or open distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The postoperative period ranged between 6 months and 5 years. The global health status/quality of life scores of Groups A and B were 56.0 +/- A 19.0 and 57.4 +/- A 18.2, respectively (p = 0.729). Group A experienced worse quality of life in role functioning (p = 0.026), cognitive functioning (p = 0.034), fatigue (p = 0.039), eating restrictions (p = 0.009), and anxiety (p = 0.033). Group A showed a trend to experience worse quality of life in physical functioning, emotional functioning, social functioning, insomnia, and body image, albeit without statistical significance. After the early postoperative period and before achieving long-term survival, patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy appeared to experience lower quality of life compared to patients who underwent open distal subtotal gastrectomy. This finding may be associated with the patients' erroneously high expectations of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available