## 3 Results
### Quality of Life Assessment (SF-36)  
With the exception of mental health (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.016), all other subscales showed significant improvements (Table 4). Figure 5: Descriptive, longitudinal changes for visual analogue scale (VAS), analysis of variance and calculation of effect size (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\)). Total effects and relevant (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) \(\geq\) 0.10) partial time effects are reported. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Examinations (Exam); n = 32**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Variance Analysis**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Exam 1** \\ **Preoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Exam 2** \\ **6 Weeks** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Exam 3** \\ **12 Weeks** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Exam 4** \\ **6 Months** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Comparison of Exam 1** \\ **vs. Exam 4** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Comparison of** \\ **vs. Exam 4** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Comparison of** \\ **vs. Exam 4** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Comparison of** \\ **vs. Exam 4** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Comparison of** \\ **vs. Exam 4** \\ **Postoperative** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Adjacent Exams** \\ **P** \\ **P** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{**Subscale**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ Physical functioning & 46.3 \(\pm\) 21.9 & 45.3 \(\pm\) 21.2 & 63.0 \(\pm\) 20.9 & 75.8 \(\pm\) 14.9 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.451 & 2 vs. 3 (0.376) \\  & & & & & & & 3 vs. 4 (0.337) \\ Physical role functioning & 43.0 \(\pm\) 36.6 & 12.5 \(\pm\) 23.8 & 57.0 \(\pm\) 42.7 & 74.1 \(\pm\) 30.3 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.446 & 2 vs. 3 (0.500) \\  & & & & & & & 3 vs. 4 (0.221) \\ Bodily pain & 31.7 \(\pm\) 17.6 & 37.2 \(\pm\) 14.7 & 57.3 \(\pm\) 15.2 & 64.3 \(\pm\) 16.3 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.560 & 2 vs. 3 (0.562) \\ General health perception & 57.4 \(\pm\) 19.2 & 61.4 \(\pm\) 18.9 & 68.2 \(\pm\) 17.2 & 66.8 \(\pm\) 15.9 & 0.007 & 0.134 & 2 vs. 3 (0.120) \\ Viability & 52.2 \(\pm\) 18.3 & 50.9 \(\pm\) 17.8 & 64.5 \(\pm\) 18.1 & 65.8 \(\pm\) 17.2 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.267 & 2 vs. 3 (0.369) \\ Social role functioning & 78.9 \(\pm\) 27.6 & 71.1 \(\pm\) 24.1 & 83.2 \(\pm\) 24.9 & 86.3 \(\pm\) 23.4 & 0.003 & 0.151 & 2 vs. 3 (0.226) \\ Emotional role functioning & 78.1 \(\pm\) 37.5 & 59.4 \(\pm\) 44.6 & 78.3 \(\pm\) 36.3 & 85.0 \(\pm\) 29.6 & 0.008 & 0.126 & 1 vs. 2 (0.188) \\ Mental health & 74.0 \(\pm\) 15.9 & 78.4 \(\pm\) 16.6 & 75.9 \(\pm\) 23.9 & 77.5 \(\pm\) 23.1 & 0.646 & 0.016 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{**Total score**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ physical health component & 31.4 \(\pm\) 8.16 & 29.8 \(\pm\) 7.22 & 40.5 \(\pm\) 8.28 & 45.0 \(\pm\) 6.36 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.573 & 2 vs. 3 (0.569) \\ mental health component & & & & & & & 3 vs. 4 (0.365) \\ summary score & 55.0 \(\pm\) 11.4 & 53.5 \(\pm\) 11.3 & 54.4 \(\pm\) 11.1 & 53.6 \(\pm\) 11.1 & 0.804 & 0.010 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{Values are given as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. Significance level: \(p<0.006\) or \(\eta_{\text{p}}^{2}\geq 0.10\). Significant differences and performance maxima marked in bold.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive longitudinal comparison, analysis of variance and calculation of effect size (\(\eta_{\text{p}}^{2}\)) for quality of life parameters. Based on the comparison of adjacent examinations only significant differences are reported. The smallest significant change was calculated for emotional role functioning (\(\eta_{\rm p}{}^{2}=0.126\)).