4.5 Article

Sarcopenia defined by muscle quality rather than quantity predicts complications following laparoscopic right hemicolectomy

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03423-x

关键词

Laparoscopic; Sarcopenia; Colorectal cancer; Complications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose While sarcopenia has prognostic value in elective colorectal surgery for predicting peri-operative morbidity and mortality, its role in elective laparoscopic surgery is poorly defined. Methods A retrospective single-center analysis of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for adenocarcinoma between January 2010 and December 2016. Univariate analysis compared the robustness of total psoas index (TPI) with Hounsfield unit average calculation (HUAC) calculated from pre-operative CT imaging in predicting post-operative complications. Multivariate analysis compared these measures with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and Charlson scores in predicting post-operative complications. Results Of the 580 patients identified, 185 met the inclusion criteria (91 males and 94 females, with a median age of 68). Using TPI and HUAC, 46 and 44 patients respectively were identified as sarcopenic, including 18 patients that were identified by both measures. HUAC-defined sarcopenia was significantly associated with pre-operative comorbidities, peri-operative mortality, and a greater incidence of respiratory, cardiac, and serious post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo >= 3). Those with HUAC-defined sarcopenia aged > 75 were at particular risk of morbidity (OR 5.52, p = 0.002). No such relationships were found with TPI-defined sarcopenia. Only HUAC remained predictive of post-operative complications on multivariate analysis. Conclusion Sarcopenia is a novel methodology for stratifying surgical risk in elective colorectal cancer surgery. HUAC has a high prognostic accuracy for the prediction of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery compared with TPI, ASA grade, and Charlson score.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据