Search

Abstract Purpose Although hysterectomy is one of the most frequently performed gynaecological surgeries, there is a dearth of evidence on perioperative care. The aim of the current study was to identify sociodemographic, surgical-related and work-related predictors of recovery following different approaches of hysterectomy. Methods Eligible patients for this retrospective cohort study were women who underwent vaginal, abdominal or laparoscopic hysterectomy for both benign and malignant gynaecological disease in 2014 in Máxima Medical Centre in the Netherlands. The main outcome measure was full return to work (RTW). Data were collected using a patient survey. Potential prognostic factors for time to RTW were examined in univariate Cox regression analyses. The strongest prognostic factors were combined in a multivariable model. Results In total 83 women were included. Median time to full return to work was 8 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 6–12). The multivariable analysis showed that higher age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.053, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.012–1.095) and same day removal of indwelling catheter (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.028–0.539) were predictors of shorter duration until full RTW after hysterectomy. Conclusions This study provided insight in the predictors of recovery after hysterectomy. By identifying patient specific factors, pre-operative counselling can be individualized, changes can be made in perioperative care and effective interventions can be designed to target those factors.

Abstract Background Convalescence advice is often based on tradition and anecdote from health care providers, rather than being based on experiences from patients themselves. The aim of this study was to analyse recovery in terms of resumption of various daily activities including work, following different laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in order to optimize an expert-based guideline on convalescence recommendations. Methods This is a prospective cohort study conducted in nine general and one university hospital in the Netherlands. Women aged 18–65 years and scheduled for a hysterectomy (laparoscopic, vaginal, abdominal) and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery (n = 304) were eligible to participate. Preoperatively, participants were provided with tailored expert-based convalescence recommendations on the graded resumption of several daily activities including sitting, standing, walking, climbing stairs, bending, lifting, driving, cycling, household chores, sport activities and return to work (RTW). Postoperatively, time until the resumption of these activities was tracked. Convalescence recommendations were considered correct when at least 25% and less than 50% of the women were able to resume an activity before or at the recommended recovery time. Results There was a wide variation in the duration until the resumption of daily activities within and between groups of patients undergoing different types of surgery. Recovery times lengthened with increasing levels of physical burden as well as with increasing levels of invasiveness of the surgery. For the majority of activities actual recovery times exceeded the recovery time recommended by the expert panel. Conclusions This study provided insight in the resumption of daily activities after gynecological surgery and the adequacy of an expert-based convalescence guideline in clinical practice. Patient data was used to optimize the convalescence recommendations. Trial registration Dutch trial registry, NTR2087 (August 2009) and NTR2933 (June 2011).

Abstract Background Postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery is measured mostly based on subjective or self-reported data. In this article we aim to evaluate whether recovery of daily physical activity levels can be measured postoperatively with the use of an accelerometer. Methods In this multicenter, observational pilot study, 30 patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery (hysterectomy, adnexal surgery, cholecystectomy and hernia inguinal surgery) were included. Patients were instructed to wear an Actigraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer during one week before surgery (baseline) and during the first, third and fifth week after surgery. Wear time, steps taken and physical activity intensity levels (sedentary, light, moderate and vigorous) were measured. Patients were blinded for the accelerometer outcomes. Additionally, an activity diary comprising patients’ self-reported time of being recovered and a list of 18 activities, in which the dates of resumption of these 18 activities were recorded after surgery, was completed by the patient. Results Five patients were excluded from analyses because of technical problems with the accelerometer (n = 1) and protocol non-adherence (n = 4). Light, moderate, vigorous, combined moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA), and step counts showed a clear recovery curve after surgery. Patients who underwent minor surgery reached their baseline step count and MVPA three weeks after surgery. Patients who underwent intermediate surgery had not yet reached their baseline step count during the last measuring week (five weeks after surgery). The results of the activity diaries showed a fair agreement with the accelerometer results (Cohens Kappa range: 0.273-0.391). Wearing the accelerometer was well tolerated and not regarded as being burdensome by the patients. Conclusions The accelerometer appeared to be a feasible way to measure recovery of postoperative physical activity levels in this study and was well tolerated by the patients. The agreement with self-reported physical recovery times was fair.