4.7 Article

Assessment of Quality of Life after Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11113017

关键词

aortic aneurysm; vascular surgery; incisional hernia; EVAR; OR quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study aimed to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between patients who underwent open repair (OR) or endovascular treatment (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm. The study found that neither OR nor EVAR provided a significant advantage in HRQoL. However, the occurrence of incisional hernia (IH) after OR significantly reduced HRQoL in patients.
Postoperative quality of life is an important outcome parameter after treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to assess and compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients after open repair (OR) or endovascular treatment (EVAR), and furthermore to investigate the effect of incisional hernia (IH) formation on HRQoL. Patients who underwent OR or EVAR for treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2008 and 2016 at a University Medical Center were included. HRQoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. The incidence of IH was recorded from patient files and by telephone contact. SF-36 scores of 83 patients (OR: n = 36; EVAR: n = 47) were obtained. The mean follow-up period was 7.1 years. When comparing HRQoL between OR and EVAR, patients in both groups scored higher in one of the eight categories of the SF36 questionnaires. The incidence of IH after OR was 30.6%. In patients with postoperative IH, HRQoL was significantly reduced in the dimensions physical functioning, role physical and role emotional of the SF-36. Based on this data, it can be concluded that neither OR nor EVAR supply a significant advantage regarding HRQoL. In contrast, the occurrence of IH has a relevant impact on the HRQoL of patients after OR.

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

4.7
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