4.1 Article

Comprehensive geriatric assessment: Influence on clinical results after colorectal surgery in advanced age patients

Journal

GASTROENTEROLOGIA Y HEPATOLOGIA
Volume 44, Issue 7, Pages 472-480

Publisher

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2020.08.014

Keywords

Colorectal surgery; Advanced age; Complications; Results; Karnofsky scale; Barthel index

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comprehensive geriatric assessment using different scales is an effective tool to assess postoperative mortality in the mid-term postoperative period.
Introduction: The objective of this work was to analyse the postoperative clinical results of patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer in relation to the results of the preoperative comprehensive geriatric evaluation. Methods: Observational study in which postoperative morbidity and mortality at 30 and 90 days were analysed in a cohort of patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer according to age groups: group 1) between 75 and 79 years old; group 2) between 80 and 84 years old, and group 3) >= 85 years old. In addition to the anaesthetic risk assessment, patients were assessed with the Karnofsky, Barthel and Pfeiffer indexes. Mortality at 30 and 90 days after surgery was analysed in relation to the results of the comprehensive evaluation. Results: A total of 227 patients with colorectal cancer were included in the study period: 91 in group 1, 89 in group 2 and 47 in group 3. There were statistically significant differences in mortality at 30 days (p = 0,029) but not at 90 days after surgery, according to age groups. Mortality at 90 days was significantly higher in patients with worse scores on the Karnofsky andBarthel scales. Conclusions: Comprehensive geriatric assessment using different scales is a good tool to assess postoperative mortality in the mid-term postoperative period. (C) 2020 Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available