Back to research feed

Anaesthesia

July 24, 2026 · via Europe PMC

Measuring patient disability in the peri-operative period using the WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire: a systematic review.

Boerlage RM, van Dartel D, Vernooij JEM, Koning NJ, Posthuma LM, Kalkman CJ, Doggen CJM, Preckel B.

Systematic ReviewOpen access

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Disability after surgery measured by WHODAS 2.0 varies by procedure: orthopaedic surgery tends to reduce it, while cancer surgery tends to raise it.

What was studied

Systematic review of 39 studies reporting WHODAS 2.0 scores before and after different surgeries.

Key findings

  • Preoperative disability ranged from 2% to 61%.
  • In 21 studies disability rose by 1-17% within 3 months of surgery, with little change between 6 and 12 months.
  • Orthopaedic patients began with high disability and improved by 10-37% within 3 months, while cancer surgery showed persistent increases.

Clinical relevance

Functional outcome expectations and counselling should be procedure-specific, and WHODAS 2.0 is a recommended perioperative outcome measure.

Who should care

Anaesthesiology

Limitations

Heterogeneous reporting and timing across studies limited comparison, and the abstract is partly cut off.

Use procedure-specific disability expectations in consent and recovery planning, and report disability endpoints in a standardized way.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

Introduction

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is recommended by peri-operative core outcome sets as a measure of disability. Despite its growing use, the effect of different surgical procedures on disability measured by WHODAS 2.0 remains poorly understood and heterogeneous reporting across studies limits direct comparison.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of different surgical procedures on disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, and the reporting of disability endpoints in peri-operative medicine. The primary outcome was the difference in WHODAS 2.0 summary score before and after surgery. Disability scores were calculated as a metric between 0% (no disability) and 100% (complete disability).

Results

Thirty-nine studies were included. Pre-operative disability ranged from 2% to 61%. In 21 studies, disability increased by 1% to 17% within 3 months of surgery, with little change between 6 and 12 months (0% to -2%). Studies of orthopaedic surgery generally reported high pre-operative disability (> 35%) but also reductions in disability (10-37% reduction) within 3 months of surgery. In contrast, studies evaluating cancer surgery (n = 12) generally reported lower pre-operative disability (< 20%) but small increases (1-8%) within 3 months of surgery. Cardiovascular surgical studies displayed pre-operative disability between 4% and 17% with a difference in disability of -8% to +3% 3 months after surgery. Three different thresholds to define disability and 13 different WHODAS 2.0 endpoints were used, measured at eight different time-points after surgery.

Discussion

The effect of surgical procedures on postoperative disability as measured by WHODAS 2.0 is influenced by the type of surgery. Orthopaedic surgery may decrease disability, whereas cancer surgery may be associated with persistent increases. Standardised reporting of disability endpoints is needed to enhance the quality and comparability of future studies using WHODAS 2.0.

DOI

10.1111/anae.70287

PMID

42494264

PMCID

PMC13659789

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in