Literature DB >> 35761148

Need for nursing care after laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery: a claims data analysis in German primary care.

Jonas D Senft1, Benedikt B Brück2, Regina Poß-Doering2, Thomas Bruckner3, Joachim Szecsenyi2, Beat P Müller-Stich4, Gunter Laux2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Our study analyzes the influence of minimally invasive vs. open surgery on the postoperative need for nursing care in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Colorectal cancer is an age-related disease, and oncologic surgery is increasingly performed in elderly patients. Long-term effects of the procedural choice on patients' self-sufficiency and autonomy have not been scientifically addressed so far.
METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models based on claims data from a statutory health insurer (AOK, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) were applied to assess potential risk factors for assignment patients to a nursing care level, a German scale to categorize individual need for nursing care, at 12 and 36 months after colorectal cancer surgery.
RESULTS: A total of 3996 patients were eligible to be included in the analysis. At 36 months postoperatively, 44 of 427 (10.3%) patients after minimally invasive colon cancer surgery and 231 of 1287 (17.9%) patients after open procedure were newly graded into a nursing care level (OR = 0.62, 95%CI = 0.44-0.90, p = 0.010). Thirty-four of 251 (13.5%) patients receiving minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery compared to 142 of 602 (23.6%) patients after open approach were newly assigned to a nursing care level (OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.34-0.81, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically assisted resection of colorectal cancer seems to be superior in preserving physical autonomy of elderly patients with colorectal cancer.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Claims data analysis; Colorectal cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Nursing care

Year:  2022        PMID: 35761148     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02592-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  25 in total

1.  Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients.

Authors:  P G Alley
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-09-16       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  H Jaap Bonjer; Charlotte L Deijen; Gabor A Abis; Miguel A Cuesta; Martijn H G M van der Pas; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Antonio M Lacy; Willem A Bemelman; John Andersson; Eva Angenete; Jacob Rosenberg; Alois Fuerst; Eva Haglind
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial.

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

4.  Cancer statistics, 2020.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study).

Authors:  Malaika S Vlug; Jan Wind; Markus W Hollmann; Dirk T Ubbink; Huib A Cense; Alexander F Engel; Michael F Gerhards; Bart A van Wagensveld; Edwin S van der Zaag; Anna A W van Geloven; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Miguel A Cuesta; Willem A Bemelman
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 14-20       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Martijn Hgm van der Pas; Eva Haglind; Miguel A Cuesta; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Wim Cj Hop; Hendrik Jaap Bonjer
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence for Laparoscopic Resection Compared With Open Resection of Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: Follow-up Results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  James Fleshman; Megan E Branda; Daniel J Sargent; Anne Marie Boller; Virgilio V George; Maher A Abbas; Walter R Peters; Dipen C Maun; George J Chang; Alan Herline; Alessandro Fichera; Matthew G Mutch; Steven D Wexner; Mark H Whiteford; John Marks; Elisa Birnbaum; David A Margolin; David W Larson; Peter W Marcello; Mitchell C Posner; Thomas E Read; John R T Monson; Sherry M Wren; Peter W T Pisters; Heidi Nelson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Seung-Yong Jeong; Ji Won Park; Byung Ho Nam; Sohee Kim; Sung-Bum Kang; Seok-Byung Lim; Hyo Seong Choi; Duck-Woo Kim; Hee Jin Chang; Dae Yong Kim; Kyung Hae Jung; Tae-You Kim; Gyeong Hoon Kang; Eui Kyu Chie; Sun Young Kim; Dae Kyung Sohn; Dae-Hyun Kim; Jae-Sung Kim; Hye Seung Lee; Jee Hyun Kim; Jae Hwan Oh
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 41.316

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.