R Indrakusuma1, M S Dunker2, J J Peetoom3, W H Schreurs2. 1. Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.indrakusuma@mca.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: Elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma are screened with the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) questionnaire to identify frail patients. These patients are more at risk for mortality and morbidity and are referred to the geriatric specialist for assessment (Dutch acronym: DOG). The DOG assessment aims to preoperatively optimize the patient in order to improve postoperative outcomes. This study evaluates if the DOG assessment influences postoperative outcome after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective cohort and match-control study. Elderly patients who underwent elective resection between 01-01-2008 and 01-08-2013 in the Medical Centre Alkmaar were included. Patients with a positive ISAR score were referred to the geriatric specialists for DOG assessment (DOG patients). DOG assessment encompassed comprehensive geriatric assessment and interventions. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Mortality, delirium and length of hospital stay. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: postoperative complications. COHORT COMPARISON: Cohort ISAR- (2008-2010, no ISAR questionnaire) is compared with cohort ISAR+ (2011-2013, ISAR questionnaire). Match-control comparison: DOG patients are compared with matched controls from cohort ISAR-. RESULTS: Compared to their matched controls, DOG patients were older and had a higher prevalence of certain risk factors for postoperative delirium. In both comparisons, no statistical significant differences were found between the groups in mortality and postoperative delirium. Length of stay was significantly shorter in cohort ISAR+. CONCLUSIONS: While the DOG patients were significantly more at risk for postoperative complications, the DOG patients had comparable postoperative outcomes as their matched controls. We therefore conclude that the DOG assessment has a positive influence on the postoperative outcomes after colorectal surgery.
AIMS: Elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma are screened with the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) questionnaire to identify frail patients. These patients are more at risk for mortality and morbidity and are referred to the geriatric specialist for assessment (Dutch acronym: DOG). The DOG assessment aims to preoperatively optimize the patient in order to improve postoperative outcomes. This study evaluates if the DOG assessment influences postoperative outcome after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective cohort and match-control study. Elderly patients who underwent elective resection between 01-01-2008 and 01-08-2013 in the Medical Centre Alkmaar were included. Patients with a positive ISAR score were referred to the geriatric specialists for DOG assessment (DOGpatients). DOG assessment encompassed comprehensive geriatric assessment and interventions. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Mortality, delirium and length of hospital stay. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: postoperative complications. COHORT COMPARISON: Cohort ISAR- (2008-2010, no ISAR questionnaire) is compared with cohort ISAR+ (2011-2013, ISAR questionnaire). Match-control comparison: DOGpatients are compared with matched controls from cohort ISAR-. RESULTS: Compared to their matched controls, DOGpatients were older and had a higher prevalence of certain risk factors for postoperative delirium. In both comparisons, no statistical significant differences were found between the groups in mortality and postoperative delirium. Length of stay was significantly shorter in cohort ISAR+. CONCLUSIONS: While the DOGpatients were significantly more at risk for postoperative complications, the DOGpatients had comparable postoperative outcomes as their matched controls. We therefore conclude that the DOG assessment has a positive influence on the postoperative outcomes after colorectal surgery.
Authors: Mauro Podda; Patricia Sylla; Gianluca Baiocchi; Michel Adamina; Vanni Agnoletti; Ferdinando Agresta; Luca Ansaloni; Alberto Arezzo; Nicola Avenia; Walter Biffl; Antonio Biondi; Simona Bui; Fabio C Campanile; Paolo Carcoforo; Claudia Commisso; Antonio Crucitti; Nicola De'Angelis; Gian Luigi De'Angelis; Massimo De Filippo; Belinda De Simone; Salomone Di Saverio; Giorgio Ercolani; Gustavo P Fraga; Francesco Gabrielli; Federica Gaiani; Mario Guerrieri; Angelo Guttadauro; Yoram Kluger; Ari K Leppaniemi; Andrea Loffredo; Tiziana Meschi; Ernest E Moore; Monica Ortenzi; Francesco Pata; Dario Parini; Adolfo Pisanu; Gilberto Poggioli; Andrea Polistena; Alessandro Puzziello; Fabio Rondelli; Massimo Sartelli; Neil Smart; Michael E Sugrue; Patricia Tejedor; Marco Vacante; Federico Coccolini; Justin Davies; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Jennie Meier; Miles Berger; Timothy Hogan; Joan Reisch; Herbert Zeh; C Munro Cullum; Simon C Lee; Celette Sugg Skinner; Cynthia J Brown; Courtney J Balentine Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.125
Authors: Nicolás M González-Senac; Jennifer Mayordomo-Cava; Angela Macías-Valle; Paula Aldama-Marín; Sara Majuelos González; María Luisa Cruz Arnés; Luis M Jiménez-Gómez; María T Vidán-Astiz; José Antonio Serra-Rexach Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.390