2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.09.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A secondary objective of this review was to summarise outcomes of ERPs in older patients, without comparison to younger patients or conventional care: the two earlier reviews studied the safety and feasibility of ERPs (by analysing cohort studies comparing different age groups), and their efficacy (by analysing the only two existing RCTs of ERP versus conventional care in older patients [24, 28]). They concluded that ERPs are safe and feasible, with a comparable post-operative morbidity in the younger and older patient population in the majority of the studies, and that ERPs had significantly better outcomes than conventional care [11, 12]. In this novel review we included 8 new studies (we excluded emergency surgery, which explains why two studies from the previous reviews were not included).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A secondary objective of this review was to summarise outcomes of ERPs in older patients, without comparison to younger patients or conventional care: the two earlier reviews studied the safety and feasibility of ERPs (by analysing cohort studies comparing different age groups), and their efficacy (by analysing the only two existing RCTs of ERP versus conventional care in older patients [24, 28]). They concluded that ERPs are safe and feasible, with a comparable post-operative morbidity in the younger and older patient population in the majority of the studies, and that ERPs had significantly better outcomes than conventional care [11, 12]. In this novel review we included 8 new studies (we excluded emergency surgery, which explains why two studies from the previous reviews were not included).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2014, Bagnall et al published a first review about the safety, feasibility and efficacy of ERPs in patients aged 65 and over undergoing colorectal surgery, including 16 studies published before February 2014 [11]. Launay-Savary et al performed a new search until 2015 and included two extra studies: a meeting abstract and a study later retracted from literature [12]. With new literature emerging since the latest reviews, and ERPs being further standardised, a new systematic literature review was deemed useful.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some clinicians may be concerned about the development of adverse events when postoperative rehabilitation is initiated early. 13) In our patients, however, no adverse event was found with the initiation of our proposed protocol. For our patients, whether early rehabilitation could be initiated was carefully considered based on the postoperative condition of each patient.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Notably, recovery following acute illness and particularly surgical intervention may be prolonged in the elderly population, as a consequence of a loss of strength, mobility, and functional capacity [23][24][25][26]. Frailty may manifest phenotypically as decline in lean body mass, strength, endurance, balance, walking performance and low activity; patients who have three or more of the ve features of slowness, weakness, exhaustion, weight loss and low physical activity are deemed frail, while those who have none of the features are non-frail.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%