4.5 Article

Results of pancreatic surgery in the elderly: is age a barrier?

Journal

HPB
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 24-30

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00549.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background By 2033, the number of people aged 85?years and over in the UK is projected to double, accounting for 5% of the total population. It is important to understand the surgical outcome after a pancreatic resection in the elderly to assist decision making. Methods Over a 9-year period (from January 2000 to August 2009), 428 consecutive patients who underwent a pancreatic resection were reviewed. Data were collected on mortality, complications, length of stay and survival. Patients were divided into two groups (younger than 70 and older than 70 years old) and outcomes were analysed. Results In all, 119 (27.8%) patients were = 70?years and 309 (72.2%) patients were < 70?years. The median length of stay for the older and younger group was 15?days (range 391) and 14?days (range 3144), respectively. The overall mortality was 3.4% in the older group and 2.6% in the younger group (P = 0.75). The older cohort had a cumulative median survival of 57.3?months (range 0119), compared with 78.7?months (range 0126) in the younger cohort (P < 0.0001). In patients undergoing a pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma there was a significant difference in survival with P-values of 0.043 and 0.003, respectively. For ampullary adenocarcinoma, the older group had a median survival of 47.1?months compared with 68.3?months (P = 0.194). Conclusion Results from this study suggest that while elderly patients can safely undergo a pancreatic resection and that age alone should not preclude a pancreatic resection, there is still significant morbidity and mortality in the octogenarian subgroup with poor long-term survival with the need for quality-of-life assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available