International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 10, pp 1639–1646 | Cite as

Outpatient visits versus telephone interviews for postoperative care: a randomized controlled trial

  • Jennifer C. Thompson
  • Sara B. CichowskiEmail author
  • Rebecca G. Rogers
  • Fares Qeadan
  • Julissa Zambrano
  • Cynthia Wenzl
  • Peter C. Jeppson
  • Gena C. Dunivan
  • Yuko M. Komesu
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Our aim was to determine whether postoperative telephone follow-up was noninferior to in-person clinic visits based on patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were safety and clinical outcomes.


Women scheduled for pelvic surgery were recruited from a single academic institution and randomized to clinic or telephone follow-up. The clinic group returned for visits 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively and the telephone group received a call from a nurse at the same time intervals. Women completed the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care Survey (S-CAHPS) questionnaire, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI)-20, and pain scales prior to and 3 months postoperatively. Randomized patients who completed the S-CAHPS at 3 months were included for analysis. Sample size calculations, based on a 15% noninferiority limit in the S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating, required 100 participants, with power = 80% and alpha = 0.025.


From October 2016 to November 2017, 100 participants were consented, underwent surgery, were randomized, and included in the final analysis (clinic group n = 50, telephone group n = 50). Mean age was 58.5 ± 12.2 years. Demographic data and surgery type, dichotomized into outpatient and inpatient, did not differ between groups. The S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating from patients in the telephone group was noninferior to the clinic group (92 vs 88%, respectively, rated their surgeons 9 and10, with a noninferiority limit of 36.1; p = 0.006). Adverse events did not differ between groups (n = 26; 57% fclinic vs 43% telephone; p = 0.36). Patients in the telephone group did not require additional emergency room or primary care visits. Clinical outcome measures improved in both groups, with no differences (all p > 0.05).


Telephone follow-up after pelvic floor surgery results in noninferior patient satisfaction, without differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events. Telephone follow-up may improve healthcare quality and decrease patient and provider burden for postoperative care.

Clinical trial registration,, NCT02891187.


Postoperative care Patient satisfaction Telephone visits 


Compliance with ethical standards



Conflicts of interest

This project was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number UL1TR001449. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

This project was funded by the University of New Mexico’s ObGyn department Seligman Fund and the Clinical & Translational Science Center (CTSC) Pilot Grant.

J.C. Thompson, S.B. Cichowski, F. Qeadan, J. Zambrano, C. Wenzl, P.C. Jeppson report no conflict of interest.

G.C. Dunivan receives research support from Pelvalon, Inc. unrelated to the submitted work.

R.G. Rogers is DSMB chair for the TRANSFORM trial sponsored by American Medical Systems and receives royalties for scientific writings from UptoDate. She receives travel and stipend from IUGA for editor in chief services for IUJ and from ABOG for work for the board.

Y.M. Komesu reports grants from NIH (grant #PA11-260), nonfinancial support from National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health through grant no. 8UL1TR000041, The University of New Mexico Clinical and Translational Science Center, grants from NIH: U grant funding the Pelvic Floor Support Disorders Network via the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD institute.


  1. 1.
    Cortese DA, Korsmo JO. Putting U.S. health care on the right track. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1326–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer K, et al. Efficacy and utility of phone call follow-up after pediatric general surgery versus traditional clinic follow-up. Perm J. 2015;19(1):11–4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosbe KW, et al. Efficacy of postoperative follow-up telephone calls for patients who underwent adenotonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(6):718–21 discussion 722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kimman ML, et al. Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(8):1175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uppal S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of conventional and nurse-led telephone follow-up after nasal septal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004;86(4):243–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray RT, et al. Postoperative telephone review is cost-effective and acceptable to patients. Ulster Med J. 2010;79(2):76–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hwa K, Wren SM. Telehealth follow-up in lieu of postoperative clinic visit for ambulatory surgery: results of a pilot program. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(9):823–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fallaize RC, et al. Telephone follow-up following office anorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(6):464–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu JM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Subak LL, et al. Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(4):646–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sage J. Using S-CAHPS. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2013;98(8):53–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmocker RK, et al. Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS). Surgery. 2015;158(6):1724–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charlson ME, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunivan GC, et al. The association between distances traveled for care and treatment choices for pelvic floor disorders in a rural southwestern population. J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2014;7(4):23–32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jefferis H, et al. Telephone follow-up after day case tension-free vaginal tape insertion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(5):787–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wei JT, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barber MD, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ellington DR, Erekson EA, Richter HE. Outcomes of surgery for stress urinary incontinence in the older woman. Clin Geriatr Med. 2015;31(4):487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mueller MG, et al. Postoperative appointments: which ones count? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(12):1873–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer C. Thompson
    • 1
  • Sara B. Cichowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rebecca G. Rogers
    • 2
  • Fares Qeadan
    • 3
  • Julissa Zambrano
    • 1
  • Cynthia Wenzl
    • 1
  • Peter C. Jeppson
    • 1
  • Gena C. Dunivan
    • 1
  • Yuko M. Komesu
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of UrogynecologyAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Dell Medical SchoolThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.University of New Mexico Clinical and Translational Science CenterAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations