Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The surgical recovery index

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: We developed a tool, the Surgical Recovery Index (SRI), specifically to measure surgical recovery. We then tested the ability of the SRI to discriminate between patients undergoing laparoscopic (L) operations and patients undergoing open (O) operations. Methods: We surveyed 50 patients drawn from the practice of a single surgeon to establish the types of activities that define recovery from surgery. Their responses were used to construct the SRI, a self-administered questionnaire using a numerical rank-order scale format. A total score and two subscale scores (pain and activity resumption) were calculated for each patient. Mean and median scores were calculated for each patient group. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate group differences for individual questions; t-tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to evaluate group differences for summary scores. Results: In all, 149 patients completed the SRI (60 L, 89 O). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.91 for pain questions and 0.97 for activity resumption questions. The scores for pain level with time (L vs O, 1–10 scale) at week 1 (mean, 4.42 vs 6.06, p = 0.03), week 2 (mean, 3.08 vs 4.38, p = 0.04), week 3 (mean, 2.03 vs 3.16, p = 0.02), and week 4 (mean, 1.18 vs 2.28, p = 0.00) all favored laparoscopy. The scores for pain level with activity (L vs O, 1–3 scale) for getting out of bed (mean, 1.62 vs 1.85, p = 0.04), hygiene activities (mean, 1.38 vs 1.65, p = 0.04), and computer work (mean, 1.15 vs 1.56, p = 0.00) were all significant, although pain with exertion (mean, 1.87 vs 2.10, p = 0.13) was not. Delay until return to activity (L vs O, 1–4 scale) was significant, favoring L for 13 activities (all p < 0.02), but it was not significant for three activities. The scores for subscales for pain (L vs O, mean, 20.7 vs 34.4, respectively) and activity resumption delay (mean, 44.3 vs 62.0), as well as total scores (mean, 33.0 vs 49.0), were also significant (all p = 0.00). The same differences were observed when median scores were considered instead of mean scores, suggesting the robustness of the group difference. Conclusions: Reduction in time to full recovery (i.e., pain resolution and activity resumption) is a fundamental advantage of laparoscopic surgery, yet there are no tools designed to specifically measure recovery. These data provide preliminary evidence of the reliability and validity of the new SRI as a measure of recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M Bergner RA Bobbitt WB Carter BS Gilson (1981) ArticleTitleThe Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19 787–805 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:Bi2D3M3is1Q%3D Occurrence Handle7278416

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. U Berggren N Zethraeus D Arvidsson U Haglund B Jonsson (1996) ArticleTitleA cost-minimization analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 172 305–310 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00197-3 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiD38jjsl0%3D Occurrence Handle8873518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. M Borstlap JL Zant RM van Soesbergen JK van der Korst (1995) ArticleTitleQuality of life assessment: a comparison of four questionnaires: for measuring improvements after total hip replacement. Clin Rheumatol 14 15–20 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqB283js1Y%3D Occurrence Handle7743739

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. MM Cohen W Young ME Theriault R Hernandez (1996) ArticleTitleHas laparoscopic cholecystectomy changed patterns of practice and patient outcome in Ontario? Can Med Assoc J 155 161–162

    Google Scholar 

  5. JJ Huang CJ Yeo TA Sohn KD Lillemoe PK Sauter J Coleman RH Hruban JL Cameron (2000) ArticleTitleQuality of life and outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg J 231 890–898 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-200006000-00014 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3nslymtg%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. RL Kane N Lurie C Borbas et al. (1995) ArticleTitleThe outcomes of elective laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies. J Am Coll Surg 180 136–145 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqC2M3ovVI%3D Occurrence Handle7850045

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. JE Kelley RG Burrus RP Burns LD Graham KE Chandler (1993) ArticleTitleSafety, efficacy, cost, and morbidity of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: a prospective analysis of 228 consecutive patients. Am Surg 59 23–27 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyB2czlslE%3D Occurrence Handle8480927

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. A Lassen C Jenkison R Fitzpatrick T Goodacre (1998) ArticleTitleMeasuring quality of life in cosmetic surgery patients with a condition-specific instrument: the Derriford scale. Br J Plast Surg 51 380–384 Occurrence Handle10.1054/bjps.1997.0250 Occurrence Handle9771365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DP McKellar RM Johnson JA Dutro J Mellinger WA Bernie JB Peoples (1995) ArticleTitleCost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 9 158–162 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqA38%2FnsVE%3D Occurrence Handle7597585

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. SP McKenna LC Doward D Whalley (1998) ArticleTitleThe development and testing of the Well-being Index for Surgical Patients (WISP). Qual Life Res 7 167–173 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008861627541 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7osVSquw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9523498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. CM Mangione L Goldman EJ Orav ER Marcantonio A Pedan LE Ludwig MC Donaldson DJ Sugarbaker R Poss TH Lee (1997) ArticleTitleHealth-related quality of life after elective surgery: measurement of longitudinal changes. J Gen Intern Med 12 686–697

    Google Scholar 

  12. NJ Soper PT Stockmann DL Dunnegan et al. (1992) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic cholecystectomy: the new “gold standard”? Arch Surg 127 917–921 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By2A2M3jtVQ%3D Occurrence Handle1386505

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. CA Steiner EB Bass MA Talamini et al. (1994) ArticleTitleSurgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med 330 404–408 Occurrence Handle10.1056/NEJM199402103300607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. JE Ware KK Snow M Kosinski (1993, 2000) SF-36® health survey: manual and interpretation guide. QualityMetric Lincoln (RI)

    Google Scholar 

  15. J Wenner H Graffner G Lindell (1995) ArticleTitleA financial analysis of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc J 9 702 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymD2srot10%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. AW Wu (2000) Patient-reported outcomes measures. TA Gordon JL Cameron (Eds) Evidence-based surgery. BC Decker Hamilton 221–237

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from US Surgical Corporation (Norwalk, CT, USA), a division of Tyco Healthcare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Surgery, Medicine, and Health Policy Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA

    M. A. Talamini, C. L. Stanfield, D. C. Chang & A. W. Wu

Authors
  1. M. A. Talamini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. L. Stanfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. C. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. W. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Talamini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Talamini, M., Stanfield, C., Chang, D. et al. The surgical recovery index. Surg Endosc 18, 596–600 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8962-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8962-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation