Validation and Clinical Utility of the Korean Version of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) Following Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Antoine, C.; Young, B.K. Cesarean section one hundred years 1920–2020: The good, the bad and the ugly. J. Perinat. Med. 2020, 49, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilson, R.D.; Caughey, A.B.; Wood, S.L.; Macones, G.A.; Wrench, I.J.; Huang, J.; Norman, M.; Pettersson, K.; Fawcett, W.J.; Shalabi, M.M.; et al. Guidelines for antenatal and preoperative care in cesarean delivery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society Recommendations (Part 1). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 219, 523.e1–523.e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macones, G.A.; Caughey, A.B.; Wood, S.L.; Wrench, I.J.; Huang, J.; Norman, M.; Pettersson, K.; Fawcett, W.J.; Shalabi, M.M.; Metcalfe, A.; et al. Guidelines for postoperative care in cesarean delivery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations (part 3). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 221, 247.e1–247.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McKeen, D.M.; George, R.B.; Boyd, J.C.; Allen, V.M.; Pink, A. Transversus abdominis plane block does not improve early or late pain outcomes after cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Can. J. Anaesth. 2014, 61, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ma, J.; Martin, R.; Chan, B.; Gofeld, M.; Geary, M.P.; Laffey, J.G.; Abdallah, F.W. Using activity trackers to quantify postpartum ambulation: A prospective observational study of ambulation after regional anesthesia and analgesia interventions. Anesthesiology 2018, 128, 598–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gursoy, C.; Ok, G.; Aydin, D.; Eser, E.; Erbuyun, K.; Tekin, I.; Baytur, Y.; Uyar, Y. Effect of anaesthesia methods for regaining daily life activities in cesarean patients. Turk. J. Anaesthesiol. Reanim. 2014, 42, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Trivino-Juarez, J.M.; Romero-Ayuso, D.; Nieto-Pereda, B.; Forjaz, M.J.; Criado-Alvarez, J.J.; Arruti-Sevilla, B.; Aviles-Gamez, B.; Oliver-Barrecheguren, C.; Mellizo-Diaz, S.; Soto-Lucia, C.; et al. Health related quality of life of women at the sixth week and sixth month postpartum by mode of birth. Women Birth 2017, 30, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciechanowicz, S.; Setty, T.; Robson, E.; Sathasivam, C.; Chazapis, M.; Dick, J.; Carvalho, B.; Sultan, P. Development and evaluation of an obstetric quality-of-recovery score (ObsQoR-11) after elective Caesarean delivery. Br. J. Anaesth. 2019, 122, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ciechanowicz, S.; Howle, R.; Heppolette, C.; Nakhjavani, B.; Carvalho, B.; Sultan, P. Evaluation of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery score (ObsQoR-11) following non-elective caesarean delivery. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth. 2019, 39, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; Initiative, S. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Beaton, D.E.; Bombardier, C.; Guillemin, F.; Ferraz, M.B. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000, 25, 3186–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yoon, S.; Joo, H.; Oh, Y.M.; Lee, J.; Bahk, J.H.; Lee, H.J. Validation and clinical utility of the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-15 with enhanced recovery after surgery: A prospective observational cohort study. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, 614–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.H.; Kim, D.; Seo, D.; Son, J.S.; Kim, D.C. Validity and reliability of the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2018, 71, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choi, D.H.; Kim, J.A.; Chung, I.S. Comparison of combined spinal epidural anesthesia and epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2000, 44, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahn, H.J.; Choi, D.H.; Kim, C.S. Paraesthesia during the needle-through-needle and the double segment technique for combined spinal epidural anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2006, 61, 634–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stark, P.A.; Myles, P.S.; Burke, J.A. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: The QoR-15. Anesthesiology 2013, 118, 1332–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McDowell, I. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnares, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Basbug, A.; Yuksel, A.; Ellibes Kaya, A. Early versus delayed removal of indwelling catheters in patients after elective cesarean section: A prospective randomized trial. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020, 33, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Parameter | n = 120 |
---|---|
Age (years) | |
Mean ± SD | 35.5 ± 4.1 |
Range | 20–48 |
Body mass index | |
Median (IQR) | 26.1 [23.7–28.0] |
Range | 19.3–46.7 |
Parity | |
0 | 70 (58.3) |
1 | 45 (37.5) |
2 | 3 (2.5) |
3 | 2 (1.7) |
Gestation | |
Single | 108 (90.0) |
Multiple | 12 (10.0) |
Length of hospital stay (days) | |
Median (IQR) | 4 [4–4] |
Range | 4-11 |
Pre-existing medical conditions, n (%) | |
Respiratory | 2 (1.7) |
Cardiovascular | 11 (9.2) |
Neurological | 1 (0.8) |
Endocrine | 10 (8.3) |
Hematological | 14 (11.7) |
Musculoskeletal | 1 (0.8) |
Psychiatric | 0 (0.0) |
Other | 14 (11.7) |
Obstetric indication for CS, n (%) | |
Maternal choice | 31 (25.8) |
Previous CS | 39 (32.5) |
Multiple gestation | 12 (10.0) |
Cephalopelvic disproportion | 2 (1.7) |
Placenta previa | 8 (6.7) |
Other abnormal position | 1 (0.8) |
Breech | 14 (11.7) |
Others * | 13 (10.8) |
Previous CS, n (%) | |
Yes | 40 (33.3) |
No | 80 (66.7) |
ObsQoR-11K Item | Correlation to Global Health NRS Score * Spearman r (95% CI) | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Moderate pain | 0.53 (0.38 to 0.65) | <0.001 |
Severe pain | 0.38 (0.19 to 0.56) | <0.001 |
Nausea or vomiting | 0.28 (0.10 to 0.45) | 0.002 |
Dizzy | 0.31 (0.14 to 0.48) | 0.001 |
Shivering | 0.30 (0.14 to 0.46) | 0.001 |
Comfortable | 0.62 (0.48 to 0.74) | <0.001 |
Mobilize independently | 0.53 (0.39 to 0.66) | <0.001 |
Able to hold baby | 0.35 (0.18 to 0.50) | <0.001 |
Able to nurse/feed baby | 0.34 (0.17 to 0.50) | <0.001 |
Able to take care of personal hygiene | 0.50 (0.34 to 0.64) | <0.001 |
Feeling in control | 0.27 (0.09 to 0.43) | 0.003 |
Clinical Characteristic | Correlation to ObsQoR-11K Spearman r (95% CI) | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Length of stay | −0.01 (−0.17 to 0.16) | 0.934 |
Parity | 0.01 (−0.17 to 0.21) | 0.887 |
Gestational age | 0.13 (−0.04 to 0.29) | 0.151 |
Gestation (singleton vs twins) | −0.05 (−0.22 to 0.12) | 0.602 |
Maternal age | −0.12 (−0.28 to 0.07) | 0.198 |
BMI | −0.03 (−0.21 to 0.16) | 0.763 |
Category of CS | −0.12 (−0.30 to 0.08) | 0.204 |
Previous CS | 0.07 (−0.11 to 0.26) | 0.473 |
Duration of surgery | 0.09 (−0.09 to 0.27) | 0.343 |
Blood loss | −0.06 (−0.24 to 0.14) | 0.551 |
Preoperative Hb | 0.03 (−0.16 to 0.22) | 0.770 |
Postoperative Hb | 0.08 (−0.09 to 0.26) | 0.375 |
ObsQoR-11K Item Number * | Global Health NRS ¥ | Total ObsQoR-11K Score | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.53 | 0.65 | - | ||||||||||
2 | 0.38 | 0.56 | 0.55 | - | |||||||||
3 | 0.28 | 0.43 | 0.26 | 0.20 | - | ||||||||
4 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.52 | - | |||||||
5 | 0.30 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 0.21 | - | ||||||
6 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.16 | - | |||||
7 | 0.53 | 0.62 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.54 | - | ||||
8 | 0.35 | 0.62 | 0.26 | 0.10 | −0.01 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.52 | - | |||
9 | 0.34 | 0.60 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.79 | - | ||
10 | 0.50 | 0.65 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 0.54 | 0.63 | 0.66 | - | |
11 | 0.27 | 0.38 | 0.09 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.04 | - |
ObsQoR-11K Item | ICC |
---|---|
Moderate pain | 0.62 |
Severe pain | 0.54 |
Nausea or vomiting | 0.78 |
Dizzy | 0.89 |
Shivering | 0.89 |
Comfortable | 0.46 |
Mobilize independently | 0.61 |
Able to hold baby | 0.56 |
Able to nurse/feed baby | 0.52 |
Able to take care of personal hygiene | 0.83 |
Feeling in control | 0.92 |
Total ObsQoR-11K score | 0.76 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kang, R.; Lee, S.; Lee, E.; Cho, Y.J.; Jeong, J.S.; Choi, S.J.; Gwak, M.S.; Sim, W.S.; Kim, D.K.; Ko, J.S. Validation and Clinical Utility of the Korean Version of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) Following Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020291
Kang R, Lee S, Lee E, Cho YJ, Jeong JS, Choi SJ, Gwak MS, Sim WS, Kim DK, Ko JS. Validation and Clinical Utility of the Korean Version of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) Following Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(2):291. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020291
Chicago/Turabian StyleKang, RyungA, Seungwon Lee, Eunkyung Lee, Yoon Jee Cho, Ji Seon Jeong, Soo Joo Choi, Mi Sook Gwak, Woo Seog Sim, Duk Kyung Kim, and Justin Sangwook Ko. 2022. "Validation and Clinical Utility of the Korean Version of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) Following Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study" Diagnostics 12, no. 2: 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020291
APA StyleKang, R., Lee, S., Lee, E., Cho, Y. J., Jeong, J. S., Choi, S. J., Gwak, M. S., Sim, W. S., Kim, D. K., & Ko, J. S. (2022). Validation and Clinical Utility of the Korean Version of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) Following Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study. Diagnostics, 12(2), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020291