4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Colorectal surgery in elderly patients: our experience with DaVinci Xi® System

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 S91-S99

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-016-0670-y

关键词

Robotic surgery; Colectomy; Rectal resection; Colorectal cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Robotic technology for colorectal surgery was introduced by Weber in 2002 to improve the benefits of the minimally invasive surgery already offered by the laparoscopic approach. Aims To evaluate the feasibility and the efficacy of the application of robotic surgery in elderly patients affected by colorectal diseases. Methods We reported the outcomes obtained during our first 50 colorectal robotic surgical performances with DaVinci Xi (R) System, and we compared the results assessed for patients younger or older than 70 years. Results We examined 28 patients younger and 22 older than 70 years who underwent colorectal robotic surgery in our institution from September 2014 to June 2016. We performed 15 right colectomies, 20 left colectomies, 15 rectal resections. MeanASA score was significantly higher in the Elderly Group. No statistically significant differences have been revealed in terms of post-operative morbidity, hospital stay, first diet intake, first flatus canalization and oncological outcome. Discussion According to the prolonged operative time, robotic technology was initially reserved to young patients with good performance status in order to avoid systemic failures in elderly patients suffering from pre-existent comorbidities. Otherwise, once robotic approach safety and benefits in terms of better systemic outcomes were demonstrated, it started to be performed in elderly patients with satisfactory outcomes. Conclusion Our experience revealed that robotic surgical approach is safe, feasible and offers many systemic benefits in elderly patients also with high ASA score. Age alone has not to be considered as exclusion criteria for robotic approach.

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