Pattern recognition: a complex process.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare prospectively the convalescence of patients after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in a standardized clinical care pathway at a single institution by two surgeons of equal experience and training. METHODS: The study included all 60 patients undergoing LRP and RRP by two fellowship-trained surgeons in their first year of practice. The postoperative care of these patients was uniform and standardized. The medical records were reviewed and convalescence data obtained by an independent urologist and physician's assistant. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients, 24 underwent RRP and 36 underwent attempted LRP; 3 patients were converted from LRP to RRP. The differences in mean age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, in-hospital morphine equivalent requirement, time to oral intake, and hospital stay were not statistically significant between the LRP and RRP groups. The operating room time was significantly longer (5.8 +/- 1.2 hours versus 2.8 +/- 0.55 hours, P <0.0001) and the estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LRP group (533 +/- 212 mL versus 1473 +/- 768 mL, P <0.0001) than in the RRP group. Pain medication use at home was significantly less in the LRP group (9 +/- 13 versus 17 +/- 15 oxycodone tablets, P <0.04), as was the time to complete convalescence (30 +/- 18 days versus 47 +/- 21 days, P <0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although LRP took almost twice as long to complete as RRP in our initial clinical experience, the patients had a similar hospital course. LRP patients required less pain medication after discharge and had a shorter time to complete recovery than did RRP patients. Additional studies are needed to address long-term cancer control, potency, and continence outcomes to determine the precise role of LRP in the treatment of men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Convalescence↗

PubMed2003

The impact of patient education and psychosocial supports on return to normalcy 36 months post-kidney transplant.

INTRODUCTION: Improvements in immunosuppression, and expansion of immunosuppression coverage by Medicare now necessitate beginning to define success in transplantation from a holistic or whole person approach rather than the historical emphasis on patient and graft survival alone. In a new transplant environment, efforts will have to be made to redefine practice so that kidney transplant recipients are prepared for 10 or more years of life with a transplanted graft. Currently, 83% of transplanted patients will never return to work. The purpose of this study is to determine how targeted education and specific psychosocial supports affect the transplant patient's return to normalcy 36 months after kidney transplant. Normalcy is defined as age and socially appropriate activities for that patient. METHODS: This is a synopsis of a 1-year cross-sectional study of 51 patients who received kidney transplants in 1999 at or near their 36-month anniversary date. Thirty-six months was chosen because this is the date when most patients will lose their Medicare coverage for immunosuppression. In 1999, a multidisciplinary plan was initiated to restructure the transplant recipient evaluation process, such that education about kidney transplantation and expectations for return to normalcy were addressed at the initial 'introduction to transplant session'. These measures were then consistently reinforced with each subsequent contact. At the second contact, written verbal plans for medication purchase and return to normalcy were identified. The team made a conscious effort to develop relationships with the recipients and their significant others, with the intention to better empower them to return to normalcy post-transplant. These measures (education and psychosocial support) were this study's independent variables. At 36 months, all patients were contacted by telephone and a 12-item questionnaire was administered. The questionnaire sought information about the study's dependent variables - employment and insurance status, pre- and post-transplant. RESULTS: In this study, 44% of pre-transplant patients were non-disabled compared with 62% of transplanted patients at 36 months post-transplant (P = 0.06, Chi square). Non-disabled includes persons who are employed, homemakers, students, retired or otherwise involved in age and socio-economically appropriate activities. Pre-transplant, 23% of recipients utilized Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance coverage. At 36 months post-transplant, only 11 or 20% of patients were dependent on Medicare and Medicaid. Pre-transplant, 17 recipients had private insurance coverage vs. 23 patients 36 months later (P < 0.02, Chi square). Fifty-six per cent of the patients received a living donor transplant. CONCLUSION: A targeted multidisciplinary programme of education and psychosocial support that emphasizes return to normalcy and non-disability, beginning with the first exposure to transplant and continuing throughout the first 6 months post-transplant, yielded high rates of return to normalcy for kidney transplant recipients.

Convalescence↗