33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perioperative Nutrition in Abdominal Surgery: Recommendations and Reality

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction. Preoperative malnutrition is a major risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Definition and diagnosis of malnutrition and its treatment is still subject for controversy. Furthermore, practical implementation of nutrition-related guidelines is unknown. Methods. A review of the available literature and of current guidelines on perioperative nutrition was conducted. We focused on nutritional screening and perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing digestive surgery, and we assessed translation of recent guidelines in clinical practice. Results and Conclusions. Malnutrition is a well-recognized risk factor for poor postoperative outcome. The prevalence of malnutrition depends largely on its definition; about 40% of patients undergoing major surgery fulfil current diagnostic criteria of being at nutritional risk. The Nutritional Risk Score is a pragmatic and validated tool to identify patients who should benefit from nutritional support. Adequate nutritional intervention entails reduced (infectious) complications, hospital stay, and costs. Preoperative oral supplementation of a minimum of five days is preferable; depending on the patient and the type of surgery, immune-enhancing formulas are recommended. However, surgeons' compliance with evidence-based guidelines remains poor and efforts are necessary to implement routine nutritional screening and nutritional support.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Surgery including organ transplantation.

          Enhanced recovery of patients after surgery ("ERAS") has become an important focus of perioperative management. From a metabolic and nutritional point of view, the key aspects of perioperative care include: Enteral nutrition (EN) by means of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and if necessary tube feeding (TF) offers the possibility of increasing or ensuring nutrient intake in cases where food intake is inadequate. These guidelines are intended to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of ONS and TF in surgical patients. They were developed by an interdisciplinary expert group in accordance with officially accepted standards and are based on all relevant publications since 1980. The guideline was discussed and accepted in a consensus conference. EN is indicated even in patients without obvious undernutrition, if it is anticipated that the patient will be unable to eat for more than 7 days perioperatively. It is also indicated in patients who cannot maintain oral intake above 60% of recommended intake for more than 10 days. In these situations nutritional support should be initiated without delay. Delay of surgery for preoperative EN is recommended for patients at severe nutritional risk, defined by the presence of at least one of the following criteria: weight loss >10-15% within 6 months, BMI<18.5 kg/m(2), Subjective Global Assessment Grade C, serum albumin <30 g/l (with no evidence of hepatic or renal dysfunction). Altogether, it is strongly recommended not to wait until severe undernutrition has developed, but to start EN therapy early, as soon as a nutritional risk becomes apparent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Hospital malnutrition: the Brazilian national survey (IBRANUTRI): a study of 4000 patients

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?

              Including only a portion of all available evidence may introduce systematic errors into the meta-analytic process and threaten its validity. We set out to examine whether language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, provide different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions evaluated in randomized trials. We identified and retrieved all 79 meta-analyses from several disease areas in which explicit eligibility criteria regarding trial selection were reported. General characteristics and quality of reporting of the meta-analyses were assessed using a validated instrument. We explored the effects of language of publication of the randomized trials on the quantitative results using logistic regression analyses. Language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, did not differ with respect to the estimate of benefit of the effectiveness of an intervention (ROR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.81-1.17). These results were also robust after a series of sensitivity analyses. This study provides no evidence that language restricted meta-analyses lead to biased estimates of intervention effectiveness. We encourage others to replicate this study using different sampling frames, clinical topics and interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gastroenterol Res Pract
                GRP
                Gastroenterology Research and Practice
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1687-6121
                1687-630X
                2011
                22 May 2011
                : 2011
                : 739347
                Affiliations
                Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Irit Chermesh

                Article
                10.1155/2011/739347
                3113259
                21687620
                49e3c96c-df8c-4653-a4f7-4023ef32213a
                Copyright © 2011 Yannick Cerantola et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 July 2010
                : 20 March 2011
                Categories
                Review Article

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article