4.2 Review

Are enhanced recovery programs in colorectal surgery feasible and useful in the elderly? A systematic review of the literature

Journal

JOURNAL OF VISCERAL SURGERY
Volume 154, Issue 1, Pages 29-35

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORPORATION OFFICE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.09.016

Keywords

Enhanced recovery; after surgery; Colorectal surgery; Elderly patient; Morbidity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Enhanced recovery programs (ERP) are no longer questionable in the management of patients undergoing surgery. However, there is some doubt as to their feasibility and efficacy in the elderly. Our goal was to systematically review the evidence-based literature concerning the feasibility of ERP in elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Material and methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Database for systematic reviews as well as the grey'' literature between 2000 and 2015 were sought. Articles were selected if they compared ERP in elderly patients to ERP in young patients (feasibility) or compared ERP to traditional post-operative management in the elderly (efficacy). Results: Sixteen articles were identified according to the inclusion criteria. All showed that an ERP was feasible in the elderly although post-operative morbidity was higher compared to younger patients. Compared to traditional management, ERP was effective since it decreased (as in the young) the overall rate of complications and thus the duration of hospital stay. There were not enough data on the degree of implementation of ERP and the medico-economic aspects to come to any formal conclusions. Conclusion: This comprehensive systematic review of the literature showed that ERP was feasible and effective in the elderly undergoing colorectal surgery. Protocols should be adapted to the particular aspects of this population. Future research should target pre-operative evaluation and the place of pre-habilitation in geriatric ERP. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available