4.5 Article

Elderly patients have more infectious complications following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 94-100

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/codi.13109

关键词

Laparoscopic surgery; colorectal cancer; complications; infections; safety; ERAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Elderly patients may be at higher risk of postoperative complications, particularly infective, than younger patients. Method We prospectively followed 163 consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic resection for cancer. We compared patients < 65, 65-80 and > 80 years of age at the time of surgery. Results Seventy (42.9%) patients had no complication; 93 (57.1%) had at least one complication following surgery and in 20 (12.3%) this was major. There was no difference in major complications between the groups (P = 0.47). Patients over 65 years of age were more likely to have a complication of any severity [< 65 years, 39.3%; 65-80 years, 69.3%; and > 80 years, 63.0% (P = 0.002)]. The frequency of gastrointestinal complications (30.1%) was similar in the groups (P = 0.29), as was wound infection (25.2%) (P = 0.65). There was an increase in the frequency of infectious complications, especially chest infection, with age, from 14.8% in patients < 65 years, to 22.7% in patients 65-80 years, to 44.4% in patients > 80 years (P = 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed no increase in overall complications in elderly patients, but Stage II or Stage III cancer (OR = 2.59, P = 0.04) and increasing body mass index (BMI) (OR = 1.07 for each unit increase in BMI, P = 0.04) were related to complications. Age remained the only predictor of an infective complication on multivariate analysis. Patients > 80 years of age had 4.21 times the OR of an infective complication (P = 0.03). Conclusion Older patients are more susceptible to infective complications postoperatively, particularly chest complications. Surgeons should alter their practice to reduce morbidity, such as adopting protocols requiring early physiotherapy.

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