BACKGROUND: The purpose of this multicentric prospective study was to evaluate postoperative HRQL and satisfaction with care after laparoscopic colonic resection for colorectal cancer in elderly patients. METHODS: A total of 116 patients were enrolled in this study: 33 patients older than age 70 years had laparoscopic colectomy, whereas 24 had open colectomy; 44 patients younger than age 70 years had laparoscopic colectomy and 15 of them had open colectomy. The patients answered to three questionnaires about generic (EORTC QLQ C30) and disease-specific quality of life (EORTC CR29) and about treatment satisfaction (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Nonparametric tests and forward stepwise multiple regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: One month after surgery, global quality of life (QL2 item) was significantly impaired in elderly patients who had laparoscopic colectomy compared with younger patients who had the same operation (p = 0.003). Similarly, role function (RF), physical function (PF), emotional function (EF), cognitive function (CF), and social function (SF) were impaired in elderly patients who had laparoscopic colectomy compared with younger patients (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.013, p < 0.001, p = 0.01, respectively). Fatigue (FA), sleep disturbances (SL), appetite loss (AP), and dyspnea (DY) affected the quality of life of these patients more than younger patients (p < 0.001, p = 0.055, p = 0.051, and p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy for cancer experience less postoperative local complications than elderly patients undergoing open colectomy. Nevertheless, in the first postoperative month, these patients experience a worse global quality of life than younger patients undergoing the same operation with impairment of all the functions and the presence of fatigue, sleep disturbances, appetite loss, and dyspnea.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this multicentric prospective study was to evaluate postoperative HRQL and satisfaction with care after laparoscopic colonic resection for colorectal cancer in elderly patients. METHODS: A total of 116 patients were enrolled in this study: 33 patients older than age 70 years had laparoscopic colectomy, whereas 24 had open colectomy; 44 patients younger than age 70 years had laparoscopic colectomy and 15 of them had open colectomy. The patients answered to three questionnaires about generic (EORTC QLQ C30) and disease-specific quality of life (EORTC CR29) and about treatment satisfaction (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Nonparametric tests and forward stepwise multiple regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: One month after surgery, global quality of life (QL2 item) was significantly impaired in elderly patients who had laparoscopic colectomy compared with younger patients who had the same operation (p = 0.003). Similarly, role function (RF), physical function (PF), emotional function (EF), cognitive function (CF), and social function (SF) were impaired in elderly patients who had laparoscopic colectomy compared with younger patients (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.013, p < 0.001, p = 0.01, respectively). Fatigue (FA), sleep disturbances (SL), appetite loss (AP), and dyspnea (DY) affected the quality of life of these patients more than younger patients (p < 0.001, p = 0.055, p = 0.051, and p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy for cancer experience less postoperative local complications than elderly patients undergoing open colectomy. Nevertheless, in the first postoperative month, these patients experience a worse global quality of life than younger patients undergoing the same operation with impairment of all the functions and the presence of fatigue, sleep disturbances, appetite loss, and dyspnea.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: A Brédart; C Coens; N Aaronson; W-C Chie; F Efficace; T Conroy; J M Blazeby; E Hammerlid; M Costantini; F Joly; S Schraub; O Sezer; J I Arraras; C Rodary; A Costantini; M Mehlitz; D Razavi; A Bottomley Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2006-12-06 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: R A Allardyce; P F Bagshaw; C M Frampton; F A Frizelle; P J Hewett; N A Rieger; J S Smith; M J Solomon; A R L Stevenson Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lahiru Russell; Karla Gough; Allison Drosdowsky; Penelope Schofield; Sanchia Aranda; Phyllis N Butow; Jennifer A Westwood; Mei Krishnasamy; Jane M Young; Jo Phipps-Nelson; Dorothy King; Michael Jefford Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Francesco Cavallin; Eleonora Pinto; Luca M Saadeh; Rita Alfieri; Matteo Cagol; Carlo Castoro; Marco Scarpa Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Magdalena Tarkowska; Iwona Głowacka-Mrotek; Bartosz Skonieczny; Michał Jankowski; Tomasz Nowikiewicz; Marcin Jarzemski; Wojciech Zegarski; Piotr Jarzemski Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 4.964