Impact of age on feasibility and short-term outcomes of ERAS after laparoscopic colorectal resection
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUNDThere is still large debate on feasibility and advantages of fast-track protocols in elderly population after colorectal surgery. AIMTo investigate the impact of age on feasibility and short-term results of enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) after laparoscopic colorectal resection. METHODSData 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. RESULTSAmong 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
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Impact of age on feasibility and short-term outcomes of ERAS after laparoscopic colorectal resection
- Date Crossref
- 27/10/2019
- Éditeur
- Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.