Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery
  1. Juan David Lalinde1,
  2. Lina Caicedo2,
  3. Pedro Calderon2,
  4. Ricardo Sanchez2 and
  5. Rene Pareja3
  1. 1 Valle del Cauca, Fundacion Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia
  2. 2 Gynecology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Bogota, Colombia
  3. 3 Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Medellin, Colombia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Juan David Lalinde, Valle del Cauca, Fundacion Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia; juandavidlalinde{at}


Objective Current evidence has shown how laparoscopic surgery results in shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, and better aesthetic results. However, we do not have information on populations in Latin America and the impact that the social environment has on quality of life in patients with gynecological cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery. To assess quality of life of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery in a gynecologic oncology department over time and to establish the relationship with patient and treatment variables.

Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated the quality of life of women undergoing minimally invasive surgery from August 2019 to July 2021. The FACT-G (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—General) scale encompasses global quality of life and four domains of physical, social, emotional, and functional components. This scale was applied to measure quality of life in the preoperative, early operative, and late postoperative periods. Additionally, mixed models were used to compare quality of life based on demographic and clinical factors after minimally invasive surgery.

Results A total of 158 patients were analyzed. Belonging to a higher socioeconomic stratum (3 vs 1) had a positive impact on the global quality of life in patients undergoing surgery with an increase of 7.6 points (p=0.011). Also, a lower Charlson Index had a positive impact of 0.393 points for the physical component of quality of life (p=0.031). For the social component of quality of life, having a partner and being part of a higher socioeconomic stratum (3 and 2 vs 1) resulted in an increase of 2.11 (p=0.005), 4.06 (p<0.05), and 2.55 (p=0.004) points, respectively. Belonging to a higher socioeconomic stratum (3 vs 1) resulted in an increase of 2.03 points (p=0.031) for the functional component of quality of life. Finally, the complexity of the procedure, or whether the procedure was ambulatory or not did not impact quality of life.

Conclusions Lower Charlson Index, having a partner, or having higher socioeconomic status are all associated with higher quality of life of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
  • Gynecology
  • Postoperative complications
  • Quality of Life (PRO)/Palliative Care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Twitter @juand_lalinde, @RParejaGineOnco

  • Contributors Conception and design of study: All authors. Data collection: LC and JDL. Data analysis and interpretation: All authors. Responsible surgeon or imager: PC. Statistical analysis: RS and RP. Manuscript preparation: JDL and RP. Patient recruitment: LC and JDL. Guarantor: RP.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.