15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Within an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Elective Colorectal Surgery.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          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

          The primary driver of length of stay after bowel surgery, particularly colorectal surgery, is the time to return of gastrointestinal (GI) function. Traditionally, delayed GI recovery was thought to be a routine and unavoidable consequence of surgery, but this has been shown to be false in the modern era owing to the proliferation of enhanced recovery protocols. However, impaired GI function is still common after colorectal surgery, and the current literature is ambiguous with regard to the definition of postoperative GI dysfunction (POGD), or what is typically referred to as ileus. This persistent ambiguity has impeded the ability to ascertain the true incidence of the condition and study it properly within a research setting. Furthermore, a rational and standardized approach to prevention and treatment of POGD is needed. The second Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts to review the published literature and provide consensus recommendations on this important topic with the goal to (1) develop a rational definition for POGD that can serve as a framework for clinical and research efforts; (2) critically review the evidence behind current prevention strategies and provide consensus recommendations; and (3) develop rational treatment strategies that take into account the wide spectrum of impaired GI function in the postoperative period.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

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

          Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial.

          Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival. From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. 219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively). LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a randomised controlled trial.

            Low concentrations of albumin in serum and long gastric emptying times have been returned to normal in dogs by salt and water restriction, or a high protein intake. We aimed to determine the effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection in human beings. We randomly allocated ten patients to receive postoperative intravenous fluids in accordance present hospital practice (> or = 3 L water and 154 mmol sodium per day) and ten to receive a restricted intake (< or = 2 L water and 77 mmol sodium per day). All patients had no disease other than colonic cancer. The primary endpoint was solid and liquid-phase gastric emptying time, measured by dual isotope radionuclide scintigraphy on the fourth postoperative day. Secondary endpoints included time to first bowel movement and length of postoperative hospital stay. Analysis was by intention to treat. Median solid and liquid phase gastric emptying times (T(50)) on the fourth postoperative day were significantly longer in the standard group than in the restricted group (175 vs 72.5 min, difference 56 [95% CI 12-132], p=0.028; and 110 vs 73.5 min, 52 [9-95], p=0.017, respectively). Median passage of flatus was 1 day later (4 vs 3 days, 2 [1-2], p=0.001); median passage of stool 2.5 days later (6.5 vs 4 days, 3 [2-4], p=0.001); and median postoperative hospital stay 3 days longer (9 vs 6 days, 3 [1-8], p=0.001) in the standard group than in the restricted group. One patient in the restricted group developed hypokalaemia, whereas seven patients in the standard group had side-effects or complications (p=0.01). Positive salt and water balance sufficient to cause a 3 kg weight gain after surgery delays return of gastrointestinal function and prolongs hospital stay in patients undergoing elective colonic resection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Defining postoperative ileus: results of a systematic review and global survey.

              There is a lack of an internationally accepted standardised clinical definition for postoperative ileus (POI). This has made it difficult to estimate incidence and identify risk factors and has compromised external validity of clinical trials. To clarify terminology of POI and propose concise, clinically quantifiable definitions. A systematic review extracted definitions from randomised trials published between 1996 and 2011 investigating POI after abdominal surgery. This was followed by a global survey seeking opinions of those who have published in the field. Definitions were extracted from 52 identified trials. Responses were received in the survey from 45 of 118 corresponding authors. Data were amalgamated to synthesise the following definitions: postoperative ileus (POI) "interval from surgery until passage of flatus/stool AND tolerance of an oral diet"; prolonged POI "two or more of nausea/vomiting, inability to tolerate oral diet over 24 h, absence of flatus over 24 h, distension, radiologic confirmation occurring on or after day 4 postoperatively without prior resolution of POI"; recurrent POI "two or more of nausea/vomiting, inability to tolerate oral diet over 24 h, absence of flatus over 24 h, distension, radiologic confirmation, occurring after apparent resolution of POI". Concordance of the latter two definitions with survey responses were ≥75 %. We have proposed standardised endpoints for use in future studies to facilitate objective comparison of competing interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Anesth. Analg.
                Anesthesia and analgesia
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1526-7598
                0003-2999
                June 2018
                : 126
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ] From the Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
                [2 ] Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
                [3 ] Department of Anaesthesia, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
                [4 ] Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York.
                [5 ] Department of Anesthesiology, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York.
                [6 ] Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
                [7 ] Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
                [8 ] Division of Advanced Oncologic and Gastrointestinal Surgery.
                [9 ] Division of General, Vascular and Transplant Anesthesia, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
                Article
                10.1213/ANE.0000000000002742
                29293183
                8e24be4a-6fbf-493f-9694-42c3fa952921
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article