期刊文献+

Impact of age on feasibility and short-term outcomes of ERAS after laparoscopic colorectal resection 被引量:4

Impact of age on feasibility and short-term outcomes of ERAS after laparoscopic colorectal resection
下载PDF
导出
摘要 BACKGROUND There is still large debate on feasibility and advantages of fast-track protocols in elderly population after colorectal surgery.AIM To investigate the impact of age on feasibility and short-term results of enhanced recovery protocol(ERP)after laparoscopic colorectal resection.METHODS Data from 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection and ERP between March 2014 and July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.Three groups were considered according to patients’age:Group A,65 years old or less,Group B,66 to 75 years old and Group C,76 years old or more.Clinic and pathological data were compared amongst groups together with post-operative outcomes including post-operative overall and surgery-specific complications,mortality and readmission rate.Differences in post-operative length of stay and adherence to ERP’s items were evaluated in the three study groups.RESULTS Among the 225 patients,112 belonged to Group A,57 to Group B and 56 to Group C.Thirty-day overall morbidity was 32.9%whilst mortality was nihil.Though the percentage of complications progressively increased with age(25.9%vs 36.8%vs 42.9%),no differences were observed in the rate of major complications(4.5%vs 3.5%vs 1.8%),prolonged post-operative ileus(6.2%vs 12.2%vs 10.7%)and anastomotic leak(2.7%vs 1.8%vs 1.8%).Significant differences in recovery outcomes between groups were observed such as delayed urinary catheter removal(P=0.032)and autonomous deambulation(P=0.013)in elderly patients.Although discharge criteria were achieved later in older patients(3 d vs 3 d vs 4 d,P=0.040),post-operative length of stay was similar in the 3 groups(5 d vs 6 d vs 6 d).CONCLUSION ERPs can be successfully and safely applied in elderly undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection. BACKGROUND There is still large debate on feasibility and advantages of fast-track protocols in elderly population after colorectal surgery.AIM To investigate the impact of age on feasibility and short-term results of enhanced recovery protocol(ERP) after laparoscopic colorectal resection.METHODS Data from 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection and ERP between March 2014 and July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Three groups were considered according to patients’ age: Group A, 65 years old or less, Group B, 66 to 75 years old and Group C, 76 years old or more. Clinic and pathological data were compared amongst groups together with post-operative outcomes including post-operative overall and surgery-specific complications, mortality and readmission rate. Differences in post-operative length of stay and adherence to ERP’s items were evaluated in the three study groups.RESULTS Among the 225 patients, 112 belonged to Group A, 57 to Group B and 56 to Group C. Thirty-day overall morbidity was 32.9% whilst mortality was nihil.Though the percentage of complications progressively increased with age(25.9%vs 36.8% vs 42.9%), no differences were observed in the rate of major complications(4.5% vs 3.5% vs 1.8%), prolonged post-operative ileus(6.2% vs12.2% vs 10.7%) and anastomotic leak(2.7% vs 1.8% vs 1.8%). Significant differences in recovery outcomes between groups were observed such as delayed urinary catheter removal(P = 0.032) and autonomous deambulation(P = 0.013) in elderly patients. Although discharge criteria were achieved later in older patients(3 d vs 3 d vs 4 d, P = 0.040), post-operative length of stay was similar in the 3 groups(5 d vs 6 d vs 6 d).CONCLUSION ERPs can be successfully and safely applied in elderly undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection.
出处 《World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery》 SCIE CAS 2019年第10期395-406,共12页 世界胃肠外科杂志(英文版)(电子版)
关键词 COLORECTAL SURGERY LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY Enhanced recovery protocol Age ELDERLY Colorectal surgery Laparoscopic surgery Enhanced recovery protocol Age Elderly
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献29

  • 1Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78:606-617.
  • 2Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, von Meyenfeldt MF, Fearon KC, Revhaug A, Norderval S. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg. 2009;144:961-969.
  • 3Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ. Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(2):CD007635.
  • 4Teeuwen PH, Bleichrodt RP, de Jong PJ, van Goor H, Bremers AJ. Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional perioperative care in rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:833-839.
  • 5Arumainayagam N, McGrath J, Jefferson KP, Gillatt DA. Introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol for radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2008;101:698-701.
  • 6Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Nygren J. Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg. 2011;146:571-577.
  • 7Lowell JA, Schifferdecker C, Driscoll DF, Benotti PN, Bistrian BR. Postoperative fluid overload: not a benign problem. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:728-733.
  • 8Lobo DN, Bostock KA, Neal KR, Perkins AC, Rowlands BJ, Allison SP. Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1812-1818.
  • 9Tambyraja AL, Sengupta F, MacGregor AB, Bartolo DC, Fearon KC. Patterns and clinical outcomes associated with routine intravenous sodium and fluid administration after colorectal resection. World J Surg. 2004;28:1046-1051; discussion 1051-1052.
  • 10Brandstrup B, T?nnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R, Hjorts? E, ?rding H, Lindorff-Larsen K, Rasmussen MS, Lanng C, Wallin L, Iversen LH. Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238:641-648.

共引文献17

同被引文献50

引证文献4

二级引证文献55

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部