3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Avoidance of complications in older patients and medicare recipients undergoing gastric bypass

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 142, 期 6, 页码 506-510

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.142.6.506

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: Perioperative morbidity and mortality do not increase in carefully evaluated and managed Medicare and elderly patients undergoing gastric bypass. Design: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained bariatric database. Setting: Academic tertiary care medical center. Patients: We reviewed our database of 928 consecutive patients who underwent gastric bypass from March 24, 1998, through May 31, 2006. Of these patients, 36 underwent revision surgery and were excluded. The remaining 892 patients were separated into 4 groups by age and Medicare status. Group 1 consisted of 46 patients 60 years or older at the time of gastric bypass (range, 60-66 years). Group 2 consisted of 846 patients 59 years or younger at the time of gastric bypass (range, 18-59 years) Group 3 consisted of 31 Medicare recipients (age range 31-66 years). Group 4 consisted of 861 non-Medicare recipients (age range, 18-64 years). Main Outcome Measures: Groups were compared in terms of demographics, morbidity, and mortality. Results: No differences were found in outcomes between older vs younger and Medicare vs non-Medicare patients for any postoperative complication or mortality. Conclusions: Bariatric surgery can be performed in carefully selected Medicare recipients and patients 60 years or older with acceptable morbidity and mortality. No difference was found in the occurrence of complications in Medicare patients, patients younger than 60 years, or patients 60 years and older. We believe that these results reflect careful patient selection, intensive preoperative education, and expert operative and perioperative management. Our results indicate that bariatric surgery should not be denied solely based on age or Medicare status.

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

3.9
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