There is an increasing incidence of elderly patients requiring emergency laparotomy. Our study compares the outcomes of elderly patients undergoing emergency laparotomy against the outcomes of non-elderly patients.
Methodology
Patients who underwent emergency laparotomy between 2015 and 2017 from the National University Hospital, Singapore, were included. Apart from demographic data, indication of surgery and surgical procedure performed were collected. Prospectively collected nutritional scores were evaluated. Outcome measures included duration of surgery, length of ICU and total hospital stay, post-operative complications, and mortality indices. We performed multivariate Cox regression analysis to determine the contribution of various risk factors towards overall survival following emergency laparotomy.
Results
A total of 170 emergency laparotomies were performed. Compared to non-elderly patients, elderly patients had a significantly longer mean stay in hospital (31.5 vs. 18.6 days, p = 0.006) and mean stay in ICU (13.1 vs. 5.3 days, p = 0.003). More elderly patients suffered from post-laparotomy complications compared with non-elderly patients (65.8% vs. 37.4%, p < 0.001). 30-day mortality (31.5% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.019) and 1-year mortality (27.9% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.023) were higher in elderly patients compared with non-elderly patients. Interestingly, there was no statistically significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in both the global 3-MinNS as well as the global SGA nutritional scores. ASA status (HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.05–6.45, p = 0.038) was an independent risk factor for decreased survival following emergency laparotomy. Notably, while age ≥ 65 demonstrated a significant correlation with survival on univariate analysis (HR 1.03 (1.01–1.05), p = 0.003), this effect was lost following multivariate regression (HR 1.01 (0.453–2.23), p = 0.989).
Conclusion
Elderly patients suffer worse morbidity and mortality following emergency laparotomy. This is likely contributed by comorbidities resulting in higher ASA status.
This study utilizes a psychophysical approach to examine the effects on
carrying capacity for bi-manual carrying tasks involving different handle positions and
carrying ranges. A total of 16 female subjects participated in the experiment in groups of
two people, and each group of subjects performed the tasks in a random order with 12
different combinations of carrying task. The independent variables are handle position
(upper, middle, lower) and carrying range (F–F: floor height carried to floor height, F–W:
floor height carried to waist height, W–W: waist height carried to waist height, W–F:
waist height carried to floor height), the dependent variable is the maximum acceptable
carried weight (MAWC), heart rate (HR), and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE). The
results show that the handle position has a significant effect on MAWC and overall RPE but
no significant effect on HR. Carrying range has a significant effect on the MAWC and HR,
but no significant effect on overall HR. The handle position and carrying range have a
significant interaction on the MAWC and HR. The RPE for different body parts shows
significant differences, and the hands feel the most tired. Overall, this study confirms
that the lower handle position with the W–W carrying range is the best combination for a
two-person carrying task. 相似文献