4.5 Article

Patient Satisfaction, Chronic Pain, and Functional Status following Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 530-537

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1873-9

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Ventral hernia repairs are one of the most common surgeries performed. Symptoms are the most common motivation for repair. Unfortunately, outcomes of repair are typically measured in recurrence and infection rather than patient focused results. We correlated factors associated with decreased patient satisfaction, chronic pain, and diminished functional status following laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) Methods A retrospective study of 201 patients from two affiliated institutions was performed. Patient satisfaction, chronic abdominal pain, pain scores, and Activities Assessment Scale results were obtained in 122 patients. Results were compared with univariate and multivariate analysis. Results Thirty-two (25.4 %) patients were dissatisfied with their LVHR while 21 (17.2 %) patients had chronic abdominal pain and 32 (26.2 %) patients had poor functional status following LVHR. Decreased patient satisfaction was associated with perception of poor cosmetic outcome (OR 17.3), eventration (OR 10.2), and chronic pain (OR 1.4). Chronic abdominal pain following LVHR was associated with incisional hernia (OR 9.0), recurrence (OR 4.3), eventration (OR 6.0), mesh type (OR 1.9), or ethnicity (OR 0.10). Decreased functional status with LVHR was associated with mesh type used (OR 3.7), alcohol abuse (OR 3.4), chronic abdominal pain (OR 1.3), and age (OR 1.1). Conclusions One-fourth of patients have poor quality outcome following LVHR. These outcomes are affected by perception of cosmesis, eventration, chronic pain, hernia type, recurrence, mesh type, and patient characteristics/co-morbidities. Closing central defects and judicious mesh selection may improve patient satisfaction and function. Focus on patient-centered outcomes is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据