Purpose: To compare the postoperative quality of life (QOL) of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVR), open AAA repair, and hernia repair patients, as well as to assess the impact of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, complications, and re-interventions on QOL.
Methods: Sixty EVR, 48 open repair and 50 hernia repair patients who had undergone surgery with AS or DS between March 1996 and September 2001 were studied retrospectively using the Medical Outcomes Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey. KB conducted all interviews; none were conducted over the phone.
Results: No significant differences between the EVR and open repair groups were demonstrated (P > .05). Significant differences between these groups and the hernia repair group were found. Patients aged less than 70 years scored better than their older counterparts, men scored better than women, and patients graded as ASA I to III scored better than those graded ASA IV in various domains of the SF-36 (P < .05). No significant differences were found between patients who had experienced complications or required re-interventions and those who had not (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Patient QOL is similar after open repair and EVR; however, the QOL of these groups differs significantly with that of hernia repair patients. The patient's age, gender, and ASA grade impact upon QOL more than the type of surgery or aneurysm repair. Complications and re-interventions do not significantly impact upon patient QOL.
1. Meeberg GA: Quality of life: A concept analysis. J Adv Nurs18:32-38, 1993.
2.
2. Lacey KO, Meier GH, Krumholz HM, et al:. Outcomes after major vascular surgery: The patient's perspective. J Vasc Nurs13: 8-13, 1995.
3.
3. Beattie DK, Golledge J, Greenhalgh RM, et al: Quality of life assessment in vascular disease: Towards a consensus. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg13: 9-13, 1997.
4.
4. Rohrer MJ, Cutler BS, Brownell-Wheeler H, Longterm survival and quality of life following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Arch Surg123:1213-1217, 1998.
5.
5. Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, et al: Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?Br J Cancer57:109-112, 1988.
6.
6. Schneider JR, McHorney CA, Malenka DJ, et al: Functional health and well-being in patients with severe atherosclerotic peripheral vascular occlusive disease. Ann Vasc Surg7(5):419-428, 1993.
7.
7. Holtzman J, Caldwell M, Walvatne C, et al: Longterm functional status and quality of life after lower extremity revascularization. J Vasc Surg29(3):395-402, 1999.
8.
8. Humphreys W, Evans F, Williams T: Quality of life: Is it a practical tool in patients with vascular disease?J Cardiovasc Pharm23(Suppl 3):S34-S36, 1994.
9.
9. Robinson J, Beard JD: Management of critical led ischaemia: Quality of life issues. In Earnshaw J, Murie J (eds). Evidence for Vascular Surgery. Shropshire: T.F.M. Publishing Ltd, pp 67-71, 1999.
10.
10. Lloyd AJ, Boyle J, Bell PRF, et al: Comparison of cognitive function and quality of life after endovascular or conventional aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg80:443-447, 2000.
11.
11. Fillinger MF, Alexander AG, Cronenwett JL: Functional outcomes after endovascular versus open AAA repair. J Endovasc Surg6:73-123, 1999.
12.
12. Malina M, Lanne T, Ivancev K, et al: Reduced pulsatile wall motion of abdominal aortic aneurysms after endovascular repair. J Vasc Surg27(4):624-632,1998.
13.
13. Pell JP: Impact of intermittent claudication on quality of life. Eur J Endovasc Surg9:469-472, 1995.
14.
14. Thompson MM, Sayers RD, Reid A, et al: Quality of life following infragenicular bypass and lower limb amputation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg9:310-313, 1995.
