患者对开放式与微创胸外科手术的看法:来自单一学术机构的调查和经验

Daniel Jones, U. Bhattacharyya, Ching Yeung, A. Martel, M. Hanna, Ameera Moledina, Andrew J. E. Seely, D. Maziak, S. Sundaresan, P. Villeneuve, S. Gilbert
{"title":"患者对开放式与微创胸外科手术的看法:来自单一学术机构的调查和经验","authors":"Daniel Jones, U. Bhattacharyya, Ching Yeung, A. Martel, M. Hanna, Ameera Moledina, Andrew J. E. Seely, D. Maziak, S. Sundaresan, P. Villeneuve, S. Gilbert","doi":"10.21037/ccts-22-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite the widespread acceptance of safety and oncologic equivalence of minimally invasive thoracic surgery, adoption by thoracic surgeons is lagging. Patient perspectives on minimally invasive thoracic surgery versus open surgical approaches has not been well studied. The aim of this survey was to document patient perspective on pain, complication risks, cosmesis, travel burden, and functional outcomes and their relationship to surgical approach. Methods: From 2012–2017, 201 thoracic surgical patients were prospectively enrolled in this observational cohort study. Participants completed a RAND36 short form health survey and a PPOMITS (patient perspectives on open vs. minimally invasive thoracic surgery) questionnaire. Variables of interest were measured on a continuous visual analog scale. PPOMITS questions were classified into three anatomic regions (neck, chest, and abdomen). Surveys were completed preoperatively, then at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. Chi-squared, Fisher’s, and independent t -test were used as appropriate. Results: A total of 201 patients were surveyed. Recovery of indices was similar in both MIS and open surgery patients. On average, patients placed greater importance on postoperative pain (6.93; 95% CI: 6.69–7.17) than incision size (4.31; 95% CI: 4.0–4.63, P<0.001) and travel burden (4.35; 95% CI: 4.04–4.66, P<0.001). Risk of complications (7.36; 95% CI: 7.14–7.58) was also given more importance than incision size (P<0.001) and travel burden (P<0.001). Findings were similar at each time point and across body regions. Importance of postoperative pain was similar between both groups regardless of surgical site and timing. RAND SF-36 results indicated a significant decline in physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, energy level, pain, and social functioning at 1 month. All indices recovered to baseline at 6 months. Conclusions: Early deterioration with recovery of functional outcomes at 6 months were similar regardless of surgical approach. Risk of complications was more important to patients than incision size, pain, and distance traveled for treatment. Our results suggest that patients may be willing to enter randomized trials comparing minimally invasive and open approaches, in regionalized cancer care models.","PeriodicalId":72729,"journal":{"name":"Current challenges in thoracic surgery","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient perspectives on open vs. minimally invasive thoracic surgery (PPOMITS): survey and experience from a single academic institution\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Jones, U. Bhattacharyya, Ching Yeung, A. Martel, M. Hanna, Ameera Moledina, Andrew J. E. Seely, D. Maziak, S. Sundaresan, P. Villeneuve, S. Gilbert\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/ccts-22-10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Despite the widespread acceptance of safety and oncologic equivalence of minimally invasive thoracic surgery, adoption by thoracic surgeons is lagging. Patient perspectives on minimally invasive thoracic surgery versus open surgical approaches has not been well studied. The aim of this survey was to document patient perspective on pain, complication risks, cosmesis, travel burden, and functional outcomes and their relationship to surgical approach. Methods: From 2012–2017, 201 thoracic surgical patients were prospectively enrolled in this observational cohort study. Participants completed a RAND36 short form health survey and a PPOMITS (patient perspectives on open vs. minimally invasive thoracic surgery) questionnaire. Variables of interest were measured on a continuous visual analog scale. PPOMITS questions were classified into three anatomic regions (neck, chest, and abdomen). Surveys were completed preoperatively, then at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. Chi-squared, Fisher’s, and independent t -test were used as appropriate. Results: A total of 201 patients were surveyed. Recovery of indices was similar in both MIS and open surgery patients. On average, patients placed greater importance on postoperative pain (6.93; 95% CI: 6.69–7.17) than incision size (4.31; 95% CI: 4.0–4.63, P<0.001) and travel burden (4.35; 95% CI: 4.04–4.66, P<0.001). Risk of complications (7.36; 95% CI: 7.14–7.58) was also given more importance than incision size (P<0.001) and travel burden (P<0.001). Findings were similar at each time point and across body regions. Importance of postoperative pain was similar between both groups regardless of surgical site and timing. RAND SF-36 results indicated a significant decline in physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, energy level, pain, and social functioning at 1 month. All indices recovered to baseline at 6 months. Conclusions: Early deterioration with recovery of functional outcomes at 6 months were similar regardless of surgical approach. Risk of complications was more important to patients than incision size, pain, and distance traveled for treatment. Our results suggest that patients may be willing to enter randomized trials comparing minimally invasive and open approaches, in regionalized cancer care models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current challenges in thoracic surgery\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current challenges in thoracic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/ccts-22-10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current challenges in thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/ccts-22-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管微创胸外科手术的安全性和肿瘤等效性被广泛接受,但被胸外科医生采用的速度较慢。患者对微创胸外科手术与开放手术入路的看法尚未得到很好的研究。本调查的目的是记录患者对疼痛、并发症风险、美容、旅行负担和功能结果的看法及其与手术入路的关系。方法:2012-2017年,201例胸外科患者前瞻性纳入该观察性队列研究。参与者完成了一份RAND36简短健康调查和一份pomits(开放性与微创胸外科手术的患者观点)问卷。在连续视觉模拟量表上测量感兴趣的变量。pomits问题分为三个解剖区域(颈部、胸部和腹部)。术前、术后1个月和6个月分别完成问卷调查。适当使用卡方检验、费雪检验和独立t检验。结果:共调查201例患者。MIS和开放手术患者的恢复指标相似。平均而言,患者更重视术后疼痛(6.93;95% CI: 6.69-7.17)大于切口大小(4.31;95% CI: 4.0-4.63, P<0.001)和旅行负担(4.35;95% ci: 4.04-4.66, p <0.001)。并发症风险(7.36;95% CI: 7.14-7.58)也比切口大小(P<0.001)和旅行负担(P<0.001)更为重要。结果在每个时间点和身体各区域相似。无论手术部位和时间如何,两组术后疼痛的重要性相似。RAND SF-36结果显示,在1个月时,由于身体健康、能量水平、疼痛和社会功能导致的身体功能、角色限制显著下降。6个月后,所有指标均恢复至基线水平。结论:无论采用何种手术方式,6个月时早期恶化与功能恢复的结果相似。对患者来说,并发症的风险比切口大小、疼痛和治疗路程更重要。我们的研究结果表明,在区域化的癌症治疗模式中,患者可能愿意参加比较微创和开放方法的随机试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient perspectives on open vs. minimally invasive thoracic surgery (PPOMITS): survey and experience from a single academic institution
Background: Despite the widespread acceptance of safety and oncologic equivalence of minimally invasive thoracic surgery, adoption by thoracic surgeons is lagging. Patient perspectives on minimally invasive thoracic surgery versus open surgical approaches has not been well studied. The aim of this survey was to document patient perspective on pain, complication risks, cosmesis, travel burden, and functional outcomes and their relationship to surgical approach. Methods: From 2012–2017, 201 thoracic surgical patients were prospectively enrolled in this observational cohort study. Participants completed a RAND36 short form health survey and a PPOMITS (patient perspectives on open vs. minimally invasive thoracic surgery) questionnaire. Variables of interest were measured on a continuous visual analog scale. PPOMITS questions were classified into three anatomic regions (neck, chest, and abdomen). Surveys were completed preoperatively, then at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. Chi-squared, Fisher’s, and independent t -test were used as appropriate. Results: A total of 201 patients were surveyed. Recovery of indices was similar in both MIS and open surgery patients. On average, patients placed greater importance on postoperative pain (6.93; 95% CI: 6.69–7.17) than incision size (4.31; 95% CI: 4.0–4.63, P<0.001) and travel burden (4.35; 95% CI: 4.04–4.66, P<0.001). Risk of complications (7.36; 95% CI: 7.14–7.58) was also given more importance than incision size (P<0.001) and travel burden (P<0.001). Findings were similar at each time point and across body regions. Importance of postoperative pain was similar between both groups regardless of surgical site and timing. RAND SF-36 results indicated a significant decline in physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, energy level, pain, and social functioning at 1 month. All indices recovered to baseline at 6 months. Conclusions: Early deterioration with recovery of functional outcomes at 6 months were similar regardless of surgical approach. Risk of complications was more important to patients than incision size, pain, and distance traveled for treatment. Our results suggest that patients may be willing to enter randomized trials comparing minimally invasive and open approaches, in regionalized cancer care models.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Rare thoracic findings of catamenial pneumothorax due to repeated relapse and spontaneous remission: a case report Vein-first strategy for thoracoscopic lung segmentectomy under use of three-dimensional reconstruction of computed tomography Robotic left lower segmentectomy operations: a focused review Lung cancer surgery for older patients: a narrative review Lung cancer screening—contemporary issues: a narrative review
×
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