Questionnaire to Survey Cosmetic Outcomes in Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Masaaki Miyo, Ichiro Takemasa, K. Okuya, Tatsuya Ito, Emi Akizuki, Tadashi Ogawa, Ai Noda, Masayuki Ishii, Ryo Miura, Momoko Ichihara, Maho Toyota, Akina Kimura, Mitsugu Sekimoto
{"title":"Questionnaire to Survey Cosmetic Outcomes in Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer","authors":"Masaaki Miyo, Ichiro Takemasa, K. Okuya, Tatsuya Ito, Emi Akizuki, Tadashi Ogawa, Ai Noda, Masayuki Ishii, Ryo Miura, Momoko Ichihara, Maho Toyota, Akina Kimura, Mitsugu Sekimoto","doi":"10.1097/as9.0000000000000443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n There has been a steady increase in the use of minimally invasive surgery, including conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) and single-site laparoscopic surgery (SLS) for colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate how important the cosmetic outcome, one of the advantages of SLS, is to patients and whether SLS reflects social needs.\n \n \n \n We used a web-based questionnaire to survey nonmedical and medical workers for what factors were considered on the assumption that respondents undergo colorectal cancer surgery and that the most important person for them undergoes. Five items (curability, safety, pain, length of hospital stay, and cosmetic outcomes) were compared. After paired photographs before and after SLS and MLS were shown, perceptions of body image and cosmesis were assessed using a visual analog scale.\n \n \n \n This study included a total of 1352 respondents (990 nonmedical and 362 medical). Curability had the highest score (49.9–53.7 points), followed by safety (23.8–24.7 points). The scores for cosmetic outcomes (6.2–7.1 points) were almost equal to those of the length of hospital stay (6.2–7.1 points), which was associated with medical costs and pain (10.0–11.1 points), one of the main reasons for fear of surgery. Participants who were female, younger, and in the nonmedical group placed great importance on cosmetic outcomes. For all questions regarding body image and cosmesis, SLS had superior scores compared with MLS.\n \n \n \n Understandably, curability, and safety were most important in colorectal cancer surgery. However, medical workers should consider cosmetic outcomes, even in malignant cases.\n","PeriodicalId":503165,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgery Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgery Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/as9.0000000000000443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been a steady increase in the use of minimally invasive surgery, including conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) and single-site laparoscopic surgery (SLS) for colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate how important the cosmetic outcome, one of the advantages of SLS, is to patients and whether SLS reflects social needs. We used a web-based questionnaire to survey nonmedical and medical workers for what factors were considered on the assumption that respondents undergo colorectal cancer surgery and that the most important person for them undergoes. Five items (curability, safety, pain, length of hospital stay, and cosmetic outcomes) were compared. After paired photographs before and after SLS and MLS were shown, perceptions of body image and cosmesis were assessed using a visual analog scale. This study included a total of 1352 respondents (990 nonmedical and 362 medical). Curability had the highest score (49.9–53.7 points), followed by safety (23.8–24.7 points). The scores for cosmetic outcomes (6.2–7.1 points) were almost equal to those of the length of hospital stay (6.2–7.1 points), which was associated with medical costs and pain (10.0–11.1 points), one of the main reasons for fear of surgery. Participants who were female, younger, and in the nonmedical group placed great importance on cosmetic outcomes. For all questions regarding body image and cosmesis, SLS had superior scores compared with MLS. Understandably, curability, and safety were most important in colorectal cancer surgery. However, medical workers should consider cosmetic outcomes, even in malignant cases.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大肠癌腹腔镜手术美容效果调查问卷
微创手术(包括传统多孔腹腔镜手术(MLS)和单部位腹腔镜手术(SLS))在结直肠癌治疗中的应用稳步增加。我们旨在评估作为 SLS 优势之一的美容效果对患者的重要性,以及 SLS 是否反映了社会需求。 我们使用网络问卷调查了非医务工作者和医务工作者,假设受访者接受了结直肠癌手术,并且对他们来说最重要的人接受了手术,那么他们会考虑哪些因素。对五个项目(可治愈性、安全性、疼痛、住院时间和美容效果)进行了比较。在展示了 SLS 和 MLS 手术前后的配对照片后,使用视觉模拟量表对身体形象和外观进行了评估。 这项研究共包括 1352 名受访者(990 名非医疗人员和 362 名医疗人员)。耐久性得分最高(49.9-53.7 分),其次是安全性(23.8-24.7 分)。美容效果的得分(6.2-7.1 分)与住院时间的得分(6.2-7.1 分)几乎相等,而住院时间与医疗费用和疼痛(10.0-11.1 分)相关,疼痛是恐惧手术的主要原因之一。女性、年轻和非医疗组的参与者非常重视美容效果。在有关身体形象和外观的所有问题上,SLS 的得分均高于 MLS。 可以理解的是,在结直肠癌手术中,治愈性和安全性是最重要的。不过,即使是恶性病例,医务工作者也应考虑美容效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Within-hospital Temporal Clustering of Postoperative Complications and Implications for Safety Monitoring and Benchmarking Using ACS-NSQIP Data Association Between Surgeon Sex and Days Alive at Home Following Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study Response to Comment by Dr. Kuang on Our Manuscript “Immediate Oral Refeeding in Patients With Mild and Moderate Acute Pancreatitis: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial (PADI trial)” Visual Mapping of Operating Theater Team Dynamics and Communication for Reflexive Feedback and Surgical Practice Optimization Surgical Outcomes and Sociodemographic Disparities Across All Races: An ACS-NSQIP and NHIS Multi-Institutional Analysis of Over 7.5 Million Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1