Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 2061–2071 | Cite as

Measurement of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review

  • Harry C. Alexander
  • Cindy H. Nguyen
  • Matthew R. Moore
  • Adam S. Bartlett
  • Jacqueline A. Hannam
  • Garth H. Poole
  • Alan F. MerryEmail author
Review Article



Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC.


MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted.


A total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them.


Considerable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs.


Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Outcome Surgery 



This study was funded by the University of Auckland Honours Scholarship.

Compliance with ethical standards


Dr. Merry has financial relationships with SAFERsleep and is the Chair of the Board of the New Zealand Health Quality and Safety Commission. Mr. Alexander, Dr. Nguyen, Dr. Moore, Dr. Bartlett, Dr. Hannam, and Dr. Poole have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2019_6745_MOESM1_ESM.docx (64 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 63 KB)
464_2019_6745_MOESM2_ESM.docx (60 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 60 KB)


  1. 1.
    Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ (2004) Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 198:626–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black N (2013) Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 346:f167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, O’neill R, Kennedy DL (2007) Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 10:S125–S137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vodicka E, Kim K, Devine E, Gnanasakthy A, Scoggins J, Patrick D (2015) Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: evidence from ClinicalTrials. gov (2007–2013). Contemp Clin Trials 43:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Comabella CCi, Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R (2011) A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures for patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Group, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNair A, Whistance R, Forsythe R, Rees J, Jones J, Pullyblank A, Avery K, Brookes S, Thomas M, Sylvester P (2015) Synthesis and summary of patient-reported outcome measures to inform the development of a core outcome set in colorectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 17:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Straatman J, Joosten P, Terwee C, Cuesta M, Jansma E, van der Peet D (2016) Systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in the surgical treatment of patients with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 29:760–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stinton LM, Shaffer EA (2012) Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 6:172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carraro A, El Mazloum D, Bihl F (2011) Health-related quality of life outcomes after cholecystectomy. World J Gastroenterol 17:4945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eypasch E, Williams J, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ure B, Schmulling C, Neugebauer E, Troidl H (1995) Gastrointestinal quality of life index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 82:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW (2009) The patient scar assessment questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1481–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L (1998) Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1171–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jo YY, Kim YB, Lee D, Chang YJ, Kwak HJ (2016) Implications of palonosetron in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with respect to its anti-shivering effect. Aging Clin Exp Res 28:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schirmer BD, Edge SB, Dix J, Hyser MJ, Hanks JB, Jones RS (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Treatment of choice for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Ann Surg 213:665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen TY, Landmann MG, Potter JC, Van Rij AM (2006) Questionnaire to aid priority and outcomes assessment in gallstone disease. ANZ J Surg 76:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richmond BK, Grodman C, Walker J, Dean S, Tiley EH, Hamrick RE, Statler K, Emmett M (2016) Pilot randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs active nonoperative therapy for the treatment of biliary dyskinesia. J Am Coll Surg 222:1156–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drossman DA (2006) Rome III: the new criteria. J Dig Dis 7:181–185Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alexander HC, Bartlett AS, Wells CI, Hannam JA, Moore MR, Poole GH, Merry AF (2018) Reporting of complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review. HPB 20:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blazeby J, Macefield R, Blencowe N, Jacobs M, McNair A, Sprangers M, Brookes S (2015) Core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 102:936–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McNair AG, Whistance RN, Forsythe RO, Macefield R, Rees J, Pullyblank AM, Avery KN, Brookes ST, Thomas MG, Sylvester PA (2016) Core outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study. PLoS Med 13:e1002071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, Tugwell P (2012) Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 13:132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, King-Jones S, Ishaque S, Bhaloo Z, Adams D, Terwee CB (2014) Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core outcome set’. Trials 15:247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE, Gandek B (2001) How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the SF-8 health survey. Quality Metric Incorporated, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20:1727–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Myles P, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S (2000) Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth 84:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW (1963) Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 185:914–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stewart AL, Mills KM, King AC, Haskell WL, Gillis D, Ritter PL (2001) CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33:1126–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alhashemi M, Almahroos M, Fiore JF, Kaneva P, Gutierrez JM, Neville A, Vassiliou MC, Fried GM, Feldman LS (2017) Impact of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy on recovery of physical activity: a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 31:2299–2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosen CB, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, Ferguson D, D’Agostino R, (2000) The female sexual function index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 26:191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie K, Horne R, Cameron L, Buick D (2002) The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol Health 17:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE (1988) The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 26:724–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Allvin R, Svensson E, Rawal N, Ehnfors M, Kling AM, Idvall E (2011) The postoperative recovery profile (PRP)–a multidimensional questionnaire for evaluation of recovery profiles. J Eval Clin Pract 17:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, Amtmann D, Bode R, Buysse D, Choi S (2010) The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Clin Epidemiol 63:1179–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zapf M, Denham W, Barrera E, Butt Z, Carbray J, Wang C, Linn J, Ujiki M (2013) Patient-centered outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27:4491–4498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S (2007) The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Group W (1998) Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 28:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van den Boezem PB, Velthuis S, Lourens HJ, Cuesta MA, Sietses C (2014) Single-incision and NOTES cholecystectomy, are there clinical or cosmetic advantages when compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A case–control study comparing single-incision, transvaginal, and conventional laparoscopic technique for cholecystectomy. World J Surg 38:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fayers P, Bottomley A, Group EQoL (2002) Quality of life research within the EORTC—the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer 38:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kusano M, Shimoyama Y, Sugimoto S, Kawamura O, Maeda M, Minashi K, Kuribayashi S, Higuchi T, Zai H, Ino K (2004) Development and evaluation of FSSG: frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD. J Gastroenterol 39:888–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dunker M, Stiggelbout A, Van Hogezand R, Ringers J, Griffioen G, Bemelman W (1998) Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 12:1334–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, Denoto G, Paraskeva P, Rivas H, Soper N, Rosemurgy A, Shah S (2011) Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 201:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, van Zuijlen PP (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cleeland C, Ryan K (1994) Pain assessment: global use of the brief pain inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore 23:129–138Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bouhassira D, Attal N, Alchaar H, Boureau F, Brochet B, Bruxelle J, Cunin G, Fermanian J, Ginies P, Grun-Overdyking A (2005) Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain 114:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Van Heck GL (2003) Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure: the fatigue assessment scale. J Psychosom Res 54:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tellez N, Rio J, Tintore M, Nos C, Galan I, Montalban X (2005) Does the modified fatigue impact scale offer a more comprehensive assessment of fatigue in MS? Mult Scler 11:198–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, Leirer VO (1982) Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 17:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers P, Kempen G, Speckens A, Van Hemert A (1997) A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med 27:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Melzack R, Katz J (2007) McGill pain questionnaire. Encyclopedia of pain, Springer, pp 1102–1104Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Crawford JR, Henry JD (2004) The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Health Psychol 43:245–265Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 24:385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE (1970) STAI Manual for the Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory (self-evaluation questionnaire). Consulting Psychologists, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yueh T-P, Chen F-Y, Lin T-E, Chuang M-T (2014) Diarrhea after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: associated factors and predictors. Asian J Surg 37:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fassoulaki A, Vassi E, Korkolis D, Zotou M (2016) Perioperative continuous ropivacaine wound infusion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled double-blind trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Arezzo A, Passera R, Bullano A, Mintz Y, Kedar A, Boni L, Cassinotti E, Rosati R, Romario UF, Sorrentino M (2017) Multi-port versus single-port cholecystectomy: results of a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (MUSIC trial). Surg Endosc 31:2872–2880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Aspinen S, Harju J, Juvonen P, Karjalainen K, Kokki H, Paajanen H, Eskelinen M (2014) A prospective, randomized study comparing minilaparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a day-surgery procedure: 5-year outcome. Surg Endosc 28:827–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bulian DR, Trump L, Knuth J, Cerasani N, Heiss MM (2013) Long-term results of transvaginal/transumbilical versus classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy—an analysis of 88 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398:571–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Christoffersen MW, Brandt E, Oehlenschläger J, Rosenberg J, Helgstrand F, Jørgensen LN, Bardram L, Bisgaard T (2015) No difference in incidence of port-site hernia and chronic pain after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a nationwide prospective, matched cohort study. Surg Endosc 29:3239–3245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Harju J, Aspinen S, Juvonen P, Kokki H, Eskelinen M (2013) Ten-year outcome after minilaparotomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. Surg Endosc 27:2512–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kumar S, Ali S, Ahmad S, Meena K, Chandola H (2015) Randomised controlled trial of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Surg 77:520–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Onerup A, Angerås U, Bock D, Börjesson M, Olsén MF, Gellerstedt M, Haglind E, Nilsson H, Angenete E (2015) The preoperative level of physical activity is associated to the postoperative recovery after elective cholecystectomy–a cohort study. Int J Surg 19:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, DeNoto G, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Rivas H, Islam A (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1037–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medical and Health SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryAuckland City HospitalAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryMiddlemore HospitalAucklandNew Zealand
  5. 5.Department of AnaesthesiologyAuckland City HospitalAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations