| Literature DB >> 27358728 |
Ben Oakley1, Christopher Lamb1, Ravinder Vohra1, James Catton1.
Abstract
AIMS: Surgical resection is often the only curative treatment for oesophageal cancer. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to analyse outcomes following oesophageal resection in patients aged 75 years and older and the impact of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program in this cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Oesophageal cancer; Oesophagectomy
Year: 2016 PMID: 27358728 PMCID: PMC4916047 DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.05.016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) ISSN: 2049-0801
Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for oesophagectomy patients [10].
| Post-operative day | |
|---|---|
| Day 0 | Extubate as soon as possible if on ventilator |
| Day 1 | Leave critical care |
| Day 2 | Physiotherapy goal: chest physio, sit out of bed, walk 10 m |
| Day 3 | Chest drain changed to valved bag |
| Day 4 | Physiotherapy: sit out of bed, walk the length of the ward ×3 |
| Day 5 | Commence oral intake if no clinical evidence of leak. |
| Day 6 | Physiotherapy: shower, walk independently, climb stairs |
| Day 7 | Full mobilization and activities of daily living. Discharge. |
Reasons for exclusion.
| Reason for exclusion | n |
|---|---|
| Non-operatively managed | 2 |
| No oesophageal resection | 10 |
| Open close | 10 |
| Not malignant pathology | 1 |
| Incomplete data | 5 |
Fig. 1Age distribution of patients.
Patient demographics.
| Patient demographics | Overall | Pre-ERAS | Post-ERAS |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | 147 | 81 | 66 |
| Median age [IQR] | 78.5 [76.7–80.9] | 78.8 [IQR 74.8–82.8] | 78.5 [IQR 73.5–83.5] |
| Gender [M:F] | 112:35 | 23:58 | 54:12 |
| Co-morbidities (%) | |||
| HTN | 43 [39%] | 19 [32%] | 24 [49%] |
| Cardiac | 32 [29%] | 17 [28%] | 15 [31%] |
| Endocrine | 23 [21%] | 12 [20%] | 13 [27%] |
| Pulmonary | 13 [12%] | 6 [10%] | 7 [14%] |
| Vascular | 9 [8%] | 4 [7%] | 5 [10%] |
| Neurological | 8 [7%] | 5 [8%] | 3 [6%] |
| Renal | 3 [3%] | 1 [2%] | 2 [4%] |
| Hepatic | 0 [0%] | 0 [0%] | 0 [0%] |
| Incomplete data | 38 | 21 | 17 |
| Number of co-morbidities | |||
| 0 | 29 [27%] | 20 [33%] | 9 [18%] |
| 1 | 50 [46%] | 28 [47%] | 22 [45%] |
| 2 | 22 [20%] | 11 [18%] | 11 [22%] |
| 3 | 5 [5%] | 1 [2%] | 4 [8%] |
| Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy | 31 [21%] | 12 [15%] | 19 [29%] |
| Disease stage | |||
| Tis | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 1 | 18 | 10 | 5 |
| 2a | 36 | 16 | 20 |
| 2b | 19 | 13 | 6 |
| 3 | 69 | 38 | 31 |
| Surgical approach | |||
| Left thoracotomy | 73 | 40 | 33 |
| Two-stage Ivor-Lewis | 60 | 34 | 27 |
| Three stage KcKeown | 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Transhiatal | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Two-stage Ivor-Lewis with colonic interposition | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Post-operative length of stay and complications.
| Post operative recovery | |
|---|---|
| Median length of stay [IQR] | 16 days [13–22] |
| Median length of stay before ERAS | 18 days [14–23] |
| Median length of stay after ERAS | 14 days [9–21] |
| Post-operative complications | 66 [49%] |
| Respiratory | 32 [24%] |
| Cardiac | 30 [22%] |
| Acute kidney injury | 3 [2%] |
| Anastamotic leak | 10 [8%] |
| Pleural effusion | 10 [7%] |
| Post-operative bleeding | 4 [3%] |
| Wound infection | 3 [2%] |
| Chylothorax | 3 [2%] |
| Pneumothorax | 2 [1%] |
| Tracheo-oesophageal fistula | 1 [1%] |
| Clavien-Dindo complication grade | |
| 0 | 50 [34%] |
| 1 | 1 [1%] |
| 2 | 39 [26%] |
| 3a | 20 [14%] |
| 3b | 7 [5%] |
| 4a | 4 [3%] |
| 4b | 1 [1%] |
| 5 | 12 [8%] |
| Not recorded | 13 |
| Resection rates | |
| R1 | 55 [37%] |
| R0 | 92 [63%] |
| Circumferential involvement | 53 |
| Distal involvement | 1 |
| Proximal involvement | 1 |
Fig. 2Survival of patients aged over 75 undergroing curative oesophageal resection.
Fig. 3Long term survival before and after the introduction of ERAS.
Fig. 4Comparison of survival by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy.