Return to work following robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy: A single-center cohort study to compare duration of sick leave

Postoperative Work and Activity Restrictions After Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to assess what is known about convalescence following abdominal surgery. Through a review of the basic science and clinical literature, we explored the effect of physical activity on the healing fascia and the optimal timing for postoperative activity.

BACKGROUND

Abdominal surgery confers a 30% risk of incisional hernia development. To mitigate this, surgeons often impose postoperative activity restrictions. However, it is unclear whether this is effective or potentially harmful in preventing hernias.

METHODS

We conducted 2 separate systematic reviews using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The first assessed available basic science literature on fascial healing. The second assessed available clinical literature on activity after abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

Seven articles met inclusion criteria for the basic science review and 22 for the clinical studies review. The basic science data demonstrated variability in maximal tensile strength and time for fascial healing, in part due to differences in layer of abdominal wall measured. Some animal studies indicated a positive effect of physical activity on the healing wound. Most clinical studies were qualitative, with only 3 randomized controlled trials on this topic. Variability was reported on clinician recommendations, time to return to activity, and factors that influence return to activity. Interventions designed to shorten convalescence demonstrated improvements only in patient-reported symptoms. None reported an association between activity and complications, such as incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified gaps in our understanding of what is best for patients recovering from abdominal surgery. Randomized controlled trials are crucial in safely optimizing the recovery period.

Validation of a German translation of the CARE questionnaire and its implementation as electronic PROM to assess patient-reported postoperative convalescence and recovery after major urological surgery

Purpose

To validate a German translation of the convalescence and recovery evaluation (CARE) as an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) and use it to assess recovery after major urological surgery.

Methods

The CARE questionnaire was provided to patients scheduled for major urological surgery preoperatively, at discharge and 6 weeks postoperatively, using an ePROM system. Cronbach’s alpha, inter-scale correlations and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to validate the translation. Mixed linear regression models were used to identify factors influencing CARE results, and a multivariable logistic regression analysis was done to determine the predictive value of CARE results on quality of life (QoL).

Results

A total of 283 patients undergoing prostatectomy (n = 146, 51%), partial/radical nephrectomy (n = 70, 25%) or cystectomy (n = 67, 24%) responded to the survey. Internal consistency was high (α = 0.649–0.920) and the CFA showed a factor loading > 0.5 in 17/27 items. Significant main effects were found for the time of survey and type of surgery, while a time by type interaction was only found for the gastrointestinal subscale (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\chi_{(4)}^{2}$$\end{document}χ(4)2 = 30.37, p < 0.0001) and the total CARE score (TCS) (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\chi_{(4)}^{2}$$\end{document}χ(4)2 = 13.47, p = 0.009) for cystectomy patients, meaning a greater score decrease at discharge and lower level of recovery at follow-up. Complications demonstrated a significant negative effect on the TCS (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\chi_{(2)}^{2}$$\end{document}χ(2)2 = 8.61, p = 0.014). A high TCS at discharge was an independent predictor of a high QLQ-C30 QoL score at follow-up (OR = 5.26, 95%-CI 1.42–19.37, p = 0.013).

Conclusion

This German translation of the CARE can serve as a valid ePROM to measure recovery and predict QoL after major urological surgery.

Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy (RP) has undergone a remarkable transformation from open to minimally-invasive surgery over the last two decades. However, it is important to recognize there is still conflicting evidence regarding key outcomes. We aimed to summarize current literature on comparative effectiveness of robotic and open RP for key outcomes including oncologic results, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures, safety and postoperative complications, and healthcare costs. The bulk of the paper will discuss and interpret limitations of current data. Finally, we will also highlight future directions of both surgical approaches and its potential impact on health care delivery.

Prostate Cancer Treatment and Work: A Scoping Review

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy diagnosed in North American men. Although medical advances have improved survival rates, men treated for prostate cancer experience side-effects that can reduce their work capacity, increase financial stress, and affect their career and/or retirement plans. Working-age males comprise a significant proportion of new prostate cancer diagnoses. It is important, therefore, to understand the connections between prostate cancer and men’s work lives. This scoping review aimed to summarize and disseminate current research evidence about the impact of prostate cancer treatment on men’s work lives. Electronic databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published between 2006 and 2020 that reported on the impact of prostate cancer treatment on men’s work. Following scoping review guidelines, 21 articles that met inclusion criteria were identified and analyzed. Evidence related to the impact of prostate cancer on work was grouped under three themes: (1) work outcomes after prostate cancer treatment; (2) return to work considerations, and (3) impact of prostate cancer treatment on men’s finances. Findings indicate that men’s return to work may be more gradual than expected after prostate cancer treatment. Some men may feel pressured by financial stressors and masculine ideals to resume work. Diverse factors including older age and social benefits appear to play a role in shaping men’s work-related plans after prostate cancer treatment. The findings provide direction for future research and offer clinicians a synthesis of current knowledge about the challenges men face in resuming work in the aftermath of prostate cancer treatment.

Workplace absenteeism amongst patients undergoing open vs. robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, and partial colectomy

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the widespread uptake of robotic surgery across several surgical disciplines. While it has been shown to confer clinical benefits such as decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stays, some argue that the benefits of this technology do not outweigh its high cost. We performed a retrospective insurance-based analysis to investigate how undergoing robotic surgery, compared to open surgery, may impact the time in which an employed individual returns to work after undergoing major surgery.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of US adults with employer-sponsored insurance using claims data from the MarketScan database who underwent either open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy/myomectomy, and partial colectomy from 2012 to 2016. We performed multiple regression models incorporating propensity scores to assess the effect of robotic vs. open surgery on the number of absent days from work, adjusting for demographic characteristics and baseline absenteeism.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 1157 individuals with employer-sponsored insurance, those undergoing open surgery, compared to robotic surgery, had 9.9 more absent workdays for radical prostatectomy (95%CI 5.0 to 14.7, p < 0.001), 25.3 for hysterectomy/myomectomy (95%CI 11.0-39.6, p < 0.001), and 29.8 for partial colectomy (95%CI 14.8-44.8, p < 0.001) CONCLUSION: For the three major procedures studied, robotic surgery was associated with fewer missed days from work compared to open surgery. This information helps payers, patients, and providers better understand some of the indirect benefits of robotic surgery relative to its cost.

Duration of sick leave after active surveillance, surgery or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the loss of working time due to sick leave by treatment strategy for localised prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Nationwide cohort study.

SETTING

Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 15 902 working-aged men with localised low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed during 2007-2016 from the Prostate Cancer Data Base Sweden, together with 63 464 prostate cancer-free men. Men were followed until 2016.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Using multistate Markov models, we calculated the proportion of men on work, sick leave, disability pension and death, together with the amount of time spent in each state. All-cause and cause-specific estimates were calculated.

RESULTS

During the first 5 years after diagnosis, men with active surveillance as their primary treatment strategy spent a mean of 17 days (95% CI 15 to 19) on prostate cancer-specific sick leave, as compared with 46 days (95% CI 44 to 48) after radical prostatectomy and 44 days (95% CI 38 to 50) after radiotherapy. The pattern was similar after adjustment for cancer and sociodemographic characteristics. There were no differences between the treatment strategies in terms of days spent on sick leave due to depression, anxiety or stress. Five years after diagnosis, over 90% of men in all treatment strategies were free from sick leave, disability pension receipt and death from any cause.

CONCLUSIONS

Men on active surveillance experienced less impact on working life compared with men who received radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. From a long-term perspective, there were no major differences between treatment strategies. Our findings can inform men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer on how different treatment strategies may affect their working lives.