Measuring quality of life in patients with abdominal wall hernias: a systematic review of available tools.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall herniation (AWH) is an increasing problem for patients, surgeons, and healthcare providers. Surgical-site specific outcomes, such as infection, recurrence, and mesh explantation, are improving; however, successful repair still exposes the patient to what is often a complex major operation aimed at improving quality of life. Quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, such as aesthetics, pain, and physical and emotional functioning, are less often and less well reported. We reviewed QOL tools currently available to evaluate their suitability. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature in compliance with PRISMA guidelines was performed between 1st January 1990 and 1st May 2019. English language studies using validated quality-of-life assessment tool, whereby outcomes using this tool could be assessed were included. RESULTS: Heterogeneity in the QOL tool used for reporting outcome was evident throughout the articles reviewed. AWH disease-specific tools, hernia-specific tools, and generic tools were used throughout the literature with no obviously preferred or dominant method identified. CONCLUSION: Despite increasing acknowledgement of the need to evaluate QOL in patients with AWH, no tool has become dominant in this field. Assessment, therefore, of the impact of certain interventions or techniques on quality of life remains difficult and will continue to do so until an adequate standardised outcome measurement tool is available.

Use of the surgical Apgar score to guide postoperative care.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical Apgar score (SAS) can predict 30-day major complications or death after surgery. Studies have validated the score in different patient populations and suggest it should be used to objectively guide postoperative care. We aimed to see whether using the SAS in a decisive approach in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT) would be likely to demonstrate an effect on postoperative care and clinical outcome. METHODS: A total of 143 adults undergoing general/vascular surgery in 9 National Health Service hospitals were recruited to a pilot single blinded RCT and the data for 139 of these were analysed. Participants were randomised to a control group with standard postoperative care or to an intervention group with care influenced (but not mandated) by the SAS (decisive approach). The notional primary outcome was 30-day major complications or death. RESULTS: Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups (control: 20/69 [29%], intervention: 23/70 [33%], p=0.622). Immediate admissions to the critical care unit was higher in the intervention group, especially in the SAS 0-4 subgroup (4/6 vs 2/7) although this was not statistically significant (p=0.310). Validity was also confirmed in area under the curve (AUC) analysis (AUC: 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found that a future RCT to investigate the effect of using the SAS in a decisive approach may demonstrate a difference in postoperative care. However, significant changes to the design are needed if differences in clinical outcome are to be achieved reliably. These would include a wider array of postoperative interventions implemented using a quality improvement approach in a stepped wedge cluster design with blinded collection of outcome data.