Enhanced recovery after surgery efficacy in an older patients and high-risk population affected by colorectal cancer: a more than 1000 patients experience.

AIM: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs aims to standardize care, improving colorectal surgery outcomes. Older patients are a challenge population for these programs. The aim of this manuscript is to explore the effect of application Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol among older patients and high-risk patients undergone colorectal surgery for cancer. METHOD: Since January 2005, until September 2016, 1189 consecutive patients underwent elective Colorectal Surgery and treated according to our Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Patients are divided in three groups according to age: Group1 under 69 y-o (control group), Group2 70 to 79 y-o and Group3 over 80 y-o. Primary end point was Time to Readiness to Discharge. RESULTS: Median Time to Readiness to Discharge was 4 days (3-30) in Group 1, 5 (3-47) in Group 2 and 5 (3-19) in Group 3. Length of stay in Group 1 had a median length of 6 days (3-58), in Group 2 of 8 days (3-70) and in Group 3 of 8 days (3-53). CONCLUSIONS: Once more Enhanced recovery after surgery program has showed its efficacy in colorectal surgery field. Moreover, our experience has underlined the need to concentrate efforts mainly on older and high-risk patients.

[Living donor nephrectomy: open versus laparoscopic technique].

The living donor nephrectomy has to be safe and effective, allowing a good graft function in the recipient. In the past, donor nephrectomy was performed only by open technique; more recently this nephrectomy has also been performed by laparoscopic technique. The best technique has not been established in literature. The purpose of this study is to report the results of open and laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS. From January 1992 to August 2008, 37 living donor nephrectomies were performed. 23 nephrectomies were achieved by laparoscopic procedure (LDN) and 14 by open technique (ODN). The 2 groups were comparable regarding both donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS. All laparoscopic nephrectomies were successfully performed without conversion to open procedure. No donor deaths were reported in either groups. 3 complications (13%) in the LDN group and 1 (7.1%) in the ODN group (p=0.6) were observed. Mean operative time was higher in the LDN group (p<0.036). Mean warm and cold ischemia time, resumption of oral intake and hospital stay were shorter in the LDN group (p<0.04)( p<0.03) (p<0.0001), whereas the return to normal occupational life was similar (p<0.52). We had no significant differences in the surgical complication rates, graft and patient survival. CONCLUSIONS. Our experience suggests that both procedures can be used safely and efficiently, and assure a good renal function in the recipient. Laparoscopic nephrectomy, although more difficult, provides post-operative advantages. However, laparoscopic procedure must be performed by experienced centres only to prevent serious complications in the donor.