Oh Jeong1, Young Kyu Park2, Mi Ran Jung2, Seong Yeob Ryu2. 1. Division of Gastroenterological Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University College of Medicine, Ilsim-ri 160, Hwasun-eup, Hwasun-gun, Jeollanam-do, 519-809, Republic of Korea. surgeonjeong@gmail.com. 2. Division of Gastroenterological Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University College of Medicine, Ilsim-ri 160, Hwasun-eup, Hwasun-gun, Jeollanam-do, 519-809, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) aims at expediting postoperative recovery by implementing specific strategies in perioperative management. However, the tolerance to such fast-tracking protocols is under debate, especially in elderly patients. We aimed to investigate rate of compliance with the main ERAS guidelines in elderly gastrectomy patients. METHODS: Using data for 168 gastric cancer patients who underwent ERAS after gastrectomy as part of Clinical Trial NCT01653496, we calculated the rates of compliance with nine main ERAS guidelines and compared the compliance rates of elderly (≥70 years) and non-elderly (<70 years) patients. Surgical outcomes and fulfillment of criteria for postoperative discharge were also compared. RESULTS: The study included 55 elderly and 113 non-elderly patients. There were no significant differences between these groups of patients with respect to operative techniques and tumor stage. Except for restricted intravenous fluid administration, the patients in both groups showed very high compliance rates (>90%) for every ERAS guideline. Notably, the overall compliance rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Postoperatively, the mean time to fulfillment of discharge criteria was slightly longer for elderly patients (4.7 vs. 4.2 days, p = 0.005), but there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the incidence of postoperative complications, length of hospitalization, and readmission rate. CONCLUSION: Compliance of the medically and physically fit elderly patients with the main ERAS guidelines is comparable to that of non-elderly patients, and such protocols can be safely applied to elderly patients without significant modification.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) aims at expediting postoperative recovery by implementing specific strategies in perioperative management. However, the tolerance to such fast-tracking protocols is under debate, especially in elderly patients. We aimed to investigate rate of compliance with the main ERAS guidelines in elderly gastrectomy patients. METHODS: Using data for 168 gastric cancerpatients who underwent ERAS after gastrectomy as part of Clinical Trial NCT01653496, we calculated the rates of compliance with nine main ERAS guidelines and compared the compliance rates of elderly (≥70 years) and non-elderly (<70 years) patients. Surgical outcomes and fulfillment of criteria for postoperative discharge were also compared. RESULTS: The study included 55 elderly and 113 non-elderly patients. There were no significant differences between these groups of patients with respect to operative techniques and tumor stage. Except for restricted intravenous fluid administration, the patients in both groups showed very high compliance rates (>90%) for every ERAS guideline. Notably, the overall compliance rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Postoperatively, the mean time to fulfillment of discharge criteria was slightly longer for elderly patients (4.7 vs. 4.2 days, p = 0.005), but there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the incidence of postoperative complications, length of hospitalization, and readmission rate. CONCLUSION: Compliance of the medically and physically fit elderly patients with the main ERAS guidelines is comparable to that of non-elderly patients, and such protocols can be safely applied to elderly patients without significant modification.
Authors: Mi Ran Jung; Young Kyu Park; Jang Won Seon; Kwang Yong Kim; Oh Cheong; Seong Yeob Ryu Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Krishna K Varadhan; Keith R Neal; Cornelius H C Dejong; Kenneth C H Fearon; Olle Ljungqvist; Dileep N Lobo Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: K Mortensen; M Nilsson; K Slim; M Schäfer; C Mariette; M Braga; F Carli; N Demartines; S M Griffin; K Lassen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Fiona Paton; Duncan Chambers; Paul Wilson; Alison Eastwood; Dawn Craig; Dave Fox; David Jayne; Erika McGinnes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Pietro Maria Lombardi; Michele Mazzola; Alessandro Giani; Sara Baleri; Marianna Maspero; Paolo De Martini; Monica Gualtierotti; Giovanni Ferrari Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-05-20
Authors: Luca Gianotti; Uberto Fumagalli Romario; Stefano De Pascale; Jacopo Weindelmayer; Valentina Mengardo; Marta Sandini; Andrea Cossu; Paolo Parise; Riccardo Rosati; Lapo Bencini; Andrea Coratti; Giovanni Colombo; Federica Galli; Stefano Rausei; Francesco Casella; Andrea Sansonetti; Dario Maggioni; Andrea Costanzi; Davide P Bernasconi; Giovanni De Manzoni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Magdalena Pisarska; Piotr Zarzycki; Katarzyna Truszkiewicz; Jan Witowski; Michael Su; Robert Kupis; Anna Gajdosz; Michał Pędziwiatr Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Paolo Parise; Lorenzo Cinelli; Carlo Ferrari; Andrea Cossu; Francesco Puccetti; Leonardo Garutti; Ugo Elmore; Riccardo Rosati Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.352