Skip to main content

Do older patients (> 80 years) also benefit from ERAS after colorectal resection? A safety and feasibility study

Aging Clinical and Experimental Research volume 33, pages 1345–1352 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Background and aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a standard Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program following colorectal resection in a geriatric population, aged 80 years and older.

Methods

In this single-center before-after cohort study all patients aged 80 years and older were included after colorectal resection. Patients were divided in a pre-ERAS and an ERAS group, according to the type of perioperative care. Data were prospectively collected and analysed retrospectively. The primary outcome was short-term complication rate. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay (LOS), 30-day mortality and readmission rate.

Results

Over 4 years, 219 patients were included. Of those, 151 underwent colonic and 68 rectal resection, following the ERAS protocol perioperatively in 45 and 21 cases. There were no differences in complication rate, 30-day mortality or readmission rate in the pre-ERAS versus ERAS groups. LOS after colonic resection was reduced by 2.5 days in the ERAS group (p = 0.020). Laparoscopy was found to be an independent variable of LOS (p < 0.001, p = 0.009) and complication rate (p = 0.011, p < 0.001) for colonic and rectal surgery respectively.

Discussion

A standard ERAS protocol is safe and feasible in older patients undergoing colorectal resection. Colon resection was related with shorter LOS without increasing morbidity, readmission rate nor 30-day mortality. No adverse outcome after rectal resection was found either. Laparoscopy was associated with lower complication rate and shorter LOS.

Conclusion

A laparoscopic approach within an ERAS protocol should be considered for colorectal resection in every patient regardless of age.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data availability

Data will not be deposited.

References

  1. Scharfenberg M, Raue W, Junghans T et al (2007) “Fast-track” rehabilitation after colonic surgery in elderly patients—Is it feasible? Int J Colorectal Dis 22:1469–1474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-007-0317-8

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fearon KCH, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M et al (2005) Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutr 24:466–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2005.02.002

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Basse L, Hjort Jakobsen D, Billesbølle P et al (2000) A clinical pathway to accelerate recovery after colonic resection. Ann Surg 232:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200007000-00008

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J et al (2009) Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 144:961. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2009.170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg 37:259–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. The ERAS Compliance Group (2015) The impact of enhanced recovery protocol compliance on elective colorectal cancer resection. Ann Surg 261:1153–1159. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery a review. JAMA Surg 152:292–298. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Messenger DE, Curtis NJ, Jones A et al (2017) Factors predicting outcome from enhanced recovery programmes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31:2050–2071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5205-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Simmonds PD, Best L, George S et al (2000) Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a systematic review. Lancet 356:968–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02713-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Montroni I, Ugolini G, Saur NM et al (2018) Personalized management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: expert recommendations of the European society of surgical oncology, European society of coloproctology, international society of geriatric oncology, and American college of surgeons commissi. Eur J Surg Oncol 44:1685–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kontis V, Bennett JE, Mathers CD et al (2017) Future life expectancy in 35 industrialised countries: projections with a Bayesian model ensemble. Lancet 389:1323–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32381-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Puhan MA, Slankamenac K, Graf R et al (2013) The comprehensive complication index. Ann Surg 258:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318296c732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang Q, Suo J, Jiang J et al (2012) Effectiveness of fast-track rehabilitation vs conventional care in laparoscopic colorectal resection for elderly patients: a randomized trial. Color Dis 14:1009–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02855.x

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jia Y, Jin G, Guo S et al (2014) Fast-track surgery decreases the incidence of postoperative delirium and other complications in elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 399:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-013-1151-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zeng WG, Liu MJ, Zhou ZX et al (2018) Enhanced recovery programme following laparoscopic colorectal resection for elderly patients. ANZ J Surg 88:582–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tejedor P, Pastor C, Gonzalez-Ayora S et al (2018) Short-term outcomes and benefits of ERAS program in elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery: a case-matched study compared to conventional care. Int J Colorectal Dis 33:1251–1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-3057-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lirosi MC, Tirelli F, Biondi A et al (2019) Enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery: a focus on elderly patients over 75 years old. J Gastrointest Surg 23:587–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3943-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ostermann S, Morel P, Chale J-J et al (2019) Randomized controlled trial of enhanced recovery program dedicated to elderly patients after colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 9:1. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Devoto L, Celentano V, Cohen R et al (2017) Colorectal cancer surgery in the very elderly patient: a systematic review of laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 32:1237–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moug SJ, McCarthy K, Coode-Bate J et al (2015) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in the older person: a systematic review. Ann Med Surg 4:311–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.08.002

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Seishima R, Okabayashi K, Hasegawa H et al (2015) Is laparoscopic colorectal surgery beneficial for elderly patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 19:756–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-2748-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chesney TR, Quereshy HA, Draginov A et al (2019) Benefits of minimally-invasive surgery for sigmoid and rectal cancer in older adults compared with younger adults: Do older adults have the most to gain? J Geriatr Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2019.09.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rumstadt B, Guenther N, Wendling P et al (2009) Multimodal perioperative rehabilitation for colonic surgery in the elderly. World J Surg 33:1757–1763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0018-2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pawa N, Cathcart PL, Arulampalam THA et al (2012) Enhanced recovery program following colorectal resection in the elderly patient. World J Surg 36:415–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1328-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pisarska M, Pędziwiatr M, Małczak P et al (2016) Do we really need the full compliance with ERAS protocol in laparoscopic colorectal surgery? A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 36:377–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pędziwiatr M, Pisarska M, Kisielewski M et al (2016) ERAS protocol in laparoscopic surgery for colonic versus rectal carcinoma: are there differences in short-term outcomes?. Med Oncol 33:56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-016-0772-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Braga M, Pecorelli N, Scatizzi M et al (2017) Enhanced recovery program in high-risk patients undergoing colorectal surgery: results from the perioperative italian society registry. World J Surg 41:860–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3766-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fagard K, Wolthuis A, D’Hoore A et al (2019) A systematic review of the intervention components, adherence and outcomes of enhanced recovery programmes in older patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. BMC Geriatr 19:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1158-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fagard K, Leonard S, Deschodt M et al (2016) The impact of frailty on postoperative outcomes in individuals aged 65 and over undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J Geriatr Oncol 7:479–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2016.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van Rooijen S, Carli F, Dalton SO et al (2017) Preoperative modifiable risk factors in colorectal surgery: an observational cohort study identifying the possible value of prehabilitation. Acta Oncol (Madr) 56:329–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2016.1267872

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Katrien Boon, Gabriele Bislenghi, André D’Hoore & Albert M. Wolthuis

  2. Leuven, Belgium

    Nele Boon

Authors
  1. Katrien Boon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriele Bislenghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André D’Hoore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nele Boon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Albert M. Wolthuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Data analysis was performed by Nele Boon. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KB. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrien Boon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Research Ethics Committee of the University Hospitals Leuven. They work in accordance with the ICH-GCP principles (International Conference on Harmonisation Guidelines on Good Clinical Practice), with the most recent version of the Helsinki Declaration, and with applicable laws and regulations.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not considered necessary because this study was based on the collection of data generated by clinical practice.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 139 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boon, K., Bislenghi, G., D’Hoore, A. et al. Do older patients (> 80 years) also benefit from ERAS after colorectal resection? A safety and feasibility study. Aging Clin Exp Res 33, 1345–1352 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01655-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01655-4

Keywords

  • Elderly
  • Colorectal resection
  • ERAS
  • Laparoscopy
  • Feasibility
  • Safety