AIM: To compare the outcomes between the laparoscopic and open approaches for partial colectomy in elderly patients aged 65 years and over using the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. METHODS: The ACS NSQIP database for the years 2005-2011 was queried for all patients 65 years and above who underwent partial colectomy. 1:1 propensity score matching using the nearest- neighbor method was performed to ensure both groups had similar pre-operative comorbidities. Outcomes including post-operative complications, length of stay and mortality were compared between the laparoscopic and open groups. χ(2) and Fisher's exact test were used for discrete variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables. P < 0.05 was considered significant and odds ratios with 95%CI were reported when applicable. RESULTS: The total number of patients in the ACS NSQIP database of the years 2005-2011 was 1777035. We identified 27604 elderly patients who underwent partial colectomy with complete data sets. 12009 (43%) of the cases were done laparoscopically and 15595 (57%) were done with open. After propensity score matching, there were 11008 patients each in the laparoscopic (LC) and open colectomy (OC) cohorts. The laparoscopic approach had lower post-operative complications (LC 15.2%, OC 23.8%, P < 0.001), shorter length of stay (LC 6.61 d, OC 9.62 d, P < 0.001) and lower mortality (LC 1.6%, OC 2.9%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Even after propensity score matching, elderly patients in the ACS NSQIP database having a laparoscopic partial colectomy had better outcomes than those having open colectomies. In the absence of specific contraindications, elderly patients requiring a partial colectomy should be offered the laparoscopic approach.
AIM: To compare the outcomes between the laparoscopic and open approaches for partial colectomy in elderly patients aged 65 years and over using the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. METHODS: The ACS NSQIP database for the years 2005-2011 was queried for all patients 65 years and above who underwent partial colectomy. 1:1 propensity score matching using the nearest- neighbor method was performed to ensure both groups had similar pre-operative comorbidities. Outcomes including post-operative complications, length of stay and mortality were compared between the laparoscopic and open groups. χ(2) and Fisher's exact test were used for discrete variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables. P < 0.05 was considered significant and odds ratios with 95%CI were reported when applicable. RESULTS: The total number of patients in the ACS NSQIP database of the years 2005-2011 was 1777035. We identified 27604 elderly patients who underwent partial colectomy with complete data sets. 12009 (43%) of the cases were done laparoscopically and 15595 (57%) were done with open. After propensity score matching, there were 11008 patients each in the laparoscopic (LC) and open colectomy (OC) cohorts. The laparoscopic approach had lower post-operative complications (LC 15.2%, OC 23.8%, P < 0.001), shorter length of stay (LC 6.61 d, OC 9.62 d, P < 0.001) and lower mortality (LC 1.6%, OC 2.9%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Even after propensity score matching, elderly patients in the ACS NSQIP database having a laparoscopic partial colectomy had better outcomes than those having open colectomies. In the absence of specific contraindications, elderly patients requiring a partial colectomy should be offered the laparoscopic approach.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colectomy; Elderly; Laparoscopic; National Surgical Quality Improvement Program; Outcomes
Authors: Bruce L Hall; Barton H Hamilton; Karen Richards; Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Celia N Robinson; G John Chen; Courtney J Balentine; Shubhada Sansgiry; Christy L Marshall; Daniel A Anaya; Avo Artinyan; Daniel Albo; David H Berger Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
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: S A L Bartels; M S Vlug; M W Hollmann; M G W Dijkgraaf; D T Ubbink; H A Cense; B A van Wagensveld; A F Engel; M F Gerhards; W A Bemelman Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Joshua J Weis; Adnan A Alseidi; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Michael A Schweitzer; Yumi Hori; Vanessa Cheung; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Gabriela Batista Rodríguez; Andrea Balla; Santiago Corradetti; Carmen Martinez; Pilar Hernández; Jesús Bollo; Eduard M Targarona Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Brandon C Chapman; Csaba Gajdos; Patrick Hosokawa; William Henderson; Alessandro Paniccia; Douglas M Overbey; Ana Gleisner; Richard D Schulick; Martin D McCarter; Barish H Edil Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Caleb J Fan; Hung-Lun Chien; Matthew J Weiss; Jin He; Christopher L Wolfgang; John L Cameron; Timothy M Pawlik; Martin A Makary Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 4.584
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