1
|
Predisposing factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynecologic tumor patients. Support Care Cancer 2016; 24:4661-7. [PMID: 27306213 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3311-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2016] [Accepted: 06/07/2016] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the predictors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women with gynecologic tumor. METHODS The analysis was based on prospectively collected data of 82 adult patients with gynecologic tumor, who were submitted to open surgical treatment and undergoing general anesthesia. The predictors included were age ≥50 years, non-smoker, use of postoperative opioids, mechanical bowel preparation, intraoperative intravenous hydration (IH) ≥10 mL/kg/h, and IH in the immediate postoperative, first and second postoperative days (PO1 and PO2) ≥30 mL/kg. A score with predictor variables was built. A multiple logistic regression was fitted. To estimate the discriminating power of the chosen model, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated. Statistical significance was set at p value <0.05 and the confidence interval at 95 %. RESULTS The incidence (%) of nausea, vomiting and both, in the general population, was 36.6, 28.1, 22.0, respectively. The highest incidences of PONV were found in non-smokers and in patients who received >30 mL/kg of IH in the PO2. The results of the adjusted model showed an increased risk of PONV for each 1-point increase in the score punctuation. The relative risk was higher than 2.0 for vomiting in all period and in the PO1. The ROC curve showed great discrimination of postoperative nausea and vomiting from the proposed score (AUC >0.75). CONCLUSIONS The study population was at high risk of PONV. Therefore, institutional guidelines abolishing modificable variables following temporal evaluation of the effectiveness should be undertaken.
Collapse
|
2
|
Spitz D, Chaves GV, Peres WAF. Impact of perioperative care on the post-operative recovery of women undergoing surgery for gynaecological tumours. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016; 26. [PMID: 27112331 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12512] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/25/2016] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
To assess perioperative care in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for gynaecological tumours and how it relates to post-operative (PO) complications and oral PO feeding. Ninety-one women undergoing major abdominal surgery for gynaecological tumours were enrolled. Data included mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), prescribed diet, length of fast, start date of oral diet and progression of food consistency, anaesthetic technique, use of opioids and intravenous hydration (IH). Outcomes evaluated were nausea, vomiting and abdominal distension. The median pre-operative length of fast was 11.4 h. PO digestive complications occurred in 46.2% of the patients. Median intraoperative total IH and crystalloids were significantly higher in patients with abdominal distension during the first and second PO day. MBP with mannitol implied greater intraoperative IH and was significantly associated with a higher incidence of immediate PO nausea. Post-operative IH was also associated with gastrointestinal complications. The best cut-off point for the cumulative fluid load PO for determining a longer PO hospital stay was 4 L. Performing MBP before surgery and excessive IH are factors related to major digestive complications in our study population. Changes in pre-operative fasting time and PO refeeding should be considered to reduce the gastrointestinal complications and PO recovery time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Spitz
- University Center of Cancer Control, Pedro Ernesto University Hospital, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - G V Chaves
- National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - W A F Peres
- Josué de Castro Nutrition Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Patel SS, Floyd A, Doorly MG, Ortega AE, Ault GT, Kaiser AM, Senagore AJ. Current controversies in the management of colon cancer. Curr Probl Surg 2012; 49:398-460. [PMID: 22682507 DOI: 10.1067/j.cpsurg.2012.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
4
|
Roig JV, García-Fadrique A, Salvador A, Villalba FL, Tormos B, Lorenzo-Liñán MÁ, García-Armengol J. [Selective intestinal preparation in a multimodal rehabilitation program. Influence on preoperative comfort and the results after colorectal surgery]. Cir Esp 2011; 89:167-74. [PMID: 21333970 DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2010.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2010] [Revised: 11/15/2010] [Accepted: 12/01/2010] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Despite there being no evidence of the advantages of its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be routine in colorectal surgery. Our objective is to analyse the impact of its selective use, as regards patient comfort and results, comparing a perioperative multimodal rehabilitation program (MMRH) with conventional care (CC). MATERIAL AND METHODS A prospective study of 108 patients proposed for elective surgery, assigned consecutively 2:1 to an MMRH protocol which only included MBP in rectal surgery with low anastomosis, or to CC in whom MBP was used except in right colon surgery. We also studied two Groups (A and B) with and without the use of MBP. Their tolerance, results and postoperative recovery variables were analysed. RESULTS Thirty-nine patients were included in Group A, and 69 in Group B. A MMRH protocol was used in another 69 patients. The Group A patients had more abdominal pain, anal discomfort, nausea and thirst, but there were no differences as regards, death, overall or local complications, whilst there was less complications, suture failures and death in the MMRH when compared with CC Group (P<.05). There were no advantages observed in the use of MBP as regards the start of bowel movements, tolerance to diet or hospital stay, but these parameters were favourable to the MMRH when compared with CC Group. CONCLUSIONS The restriction of MBP is safe, and associated with an MMRH program, contributes to a faster and more comfortable recovery, without increasing complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- José Vicente Roig
- Unidad de Coloproctología, Servicio de Cirugía General y del Aparato Digestivo, Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gadducci A, Cosio S, Spirito N, Genazzani AR. The perioperative management of patients with gynaecological cancer undergoing major surgery: A debated clinical challenge. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010; 73:126-40. [DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2008] [Accepted: 02/25/2009] [Indexed: 10/20/2022] Open
|
6
|
Baca B, Aytac E, Apaydin BB, Onur E, Kilic IE, Erdamar S, Uslu E, Uzun H, Koksal S. Mechanical bowel preparation with different solutions in rats with selective left colonic ischemia and reperfusion injury. Am J Surg 2008; 196:418-24. [PMID: 18353271 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2007] [Revised: 10/30/2007] [Accepted: 10/30/2007] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on colonic ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury. METHODS Seventy adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided randomly into 7 equal groups of 10 rats each. Groups were assigned as follows: group I = sham surgery; group II = I/R of left colon (control group); group III = intravenous heparin and metronidazole followed by I/R of the left colon; groups IV through VII = before I/R of the left colon, heparin and metronidazole and MBP were performed with sodium chloride (NaCl), Na phosphate, polyethylene glycol, and mannitol, respectively. Histopathologic and biochemical parameters were evaluated. RESULTS According to the histopathologic changes, the groups least affected by I/R injury were groups V and VII. Catalase activity was significantly higher in groups V and VII, and copper-zinc superoxide dismutase activity was significantly higher in group VII compared with the control group (P <.002). CONCLUSIONS MBP with sodium phosphate and mannitol appears to be more protective against I/R injury.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bilgi Baca
- Department of Surgery, Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hwang KL, Chen WTL, Hsiao KH, Chen HC, Huang TM, Chiu CM, Hsu GH. Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 11:7486-93. [PMID: 16437721 PMCID: PMC4725166 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i47.7486] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To compare the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and physical tolerability of two oral lavage solutions prior to colonoscopy in a Taiwanese population. METHODS Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP) in a split regimen of two 45 mL doses separated by 12 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects who had completed the preparation. Secondary endpoints included colonic cleansing evaluated with an overall assessment and segmental evaluation, the tolerance and acceptability assessed by a self-administered structured questionnaire, and a safety profile such as any unexpected adverse events, electrolyte tests, physical exams, vital signs, and body weights. RESULTS A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.2% vs 27.5%, P<0.001). The amount of fluid suctioned was significantly less in patients taking NaP vs PEG (50.13+/-54.8 cc vs 121.13+/-115.4 cc, P<0.001), even after controlling for completion of the oral solution (P = 0.031). The two groups showed a comparable overall assessment of bowel preparation with a rate of "good" or "excellent" in 78.9% of patients in the NaP group and 82.5% in PEG group (P = 0.778). Patients taking NaP tended to have significantly better colonic segmental cleansing relative to stool amount observed in the descending (94.7% vs 70%, P = 0.007) and transverse (94.6% vs 74.4%, P = 0.025) colon. Slightly more patients graded the taste of NaP as "good" or "very good" compared to the PEG patients (32.5% vs 12.5%; P = 0.059). Patients' willingness to take the same preparation in the future was 68.4% in the NaP compared to 75% in the PEG group (P = 0.617). There was a significant increase in serum sodium and a significant decrease in phosphate and chloride levels in NaP group on the day following the colonoscopy without any clinical sequelae. Prolonged (>24 h) hemodynamic changes were also observed in 20-35% subjects of either group. CONCLUSION Both bowel cleansing agents proved to be similar in safety and effectiveness, while NaP appeared to be more cost-effective. After identifying and excluding patients with potential risk factors, sodium phosphate should become an alternative preparation for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy in the Taiwanese population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai-Lin Hwang
- Department of Public Health, Chung-Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, China
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
Mechanical cleansing of the colon prior to elective colorectal surgery is a dogmatically established belief in surgery. Polyethylene glycol was extensively used in the 1980's and 1990's but has been largely replaced by other laxative solutions such as sodium phosphate which are better tolerated by the patient. Evidence-based data in the surgical literature question the dogma of routine mechanical bowel cleansing (8 randomized controlled studies and 4 meta-analyses). These data show with a good level of evidence that mechanical bowel preparation is unnecessary and perhaps harmful.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Slim
- Service de Chirurgie Générale et Digestive, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Slim K, Valleur P. [How to clean the colon before colorectal surgery?]. ANNALES DE CHIRURGIE 2003; 128:385-7. [PMID: 12943835 DOI: 10.1016/s0003-3944(03)00116-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- K Slim
- Service de chirurgie générale et digestive, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
van Geldere D, Fa-Si-Oen P, Noach LA, Rietra PJGM, Peterse JL, Boom RPA. Complications after colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation. J Am Coll Surg 2002; 194:40-7. [PMID: 11803955 DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(01)01131-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The current practice of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery is questionable. Mechanical bowel preparation is unpleasant for the patient, often distressful, and potentially harmful. The results are often less than desired, increasing the risk of contamination. Cleansing the colon and rectum before surgery has never been shown in clinical trials to benefit patients. In animal experiments MBP has a detrimental effect on colonic healing. STUDY DESIGN To investigate the outcomes of colorectal surgery without MBP, we prospectively evaluated a consecutive series of patients who underwent resection and primary anastomosis of the colon and upper rectum, including emergency operations. One surgeon performed all operations. Endpoints were wound infection, anastomotic failure, and death. Late signs and symptoms that might be secondary to leakage of the anastomosis were considered as an anastomotic failure as well, during a followup of 1 year. RESULTS Two hundred fifty operations were performed, of which 199 (79.6%) were elective. Colectomies were left-sided in 65.6%. Anastomoses were ileocolic in 32%, colocolic in 20.8%, colorectal intraperitoneal in 34.4%, and extraperitoneal in 12.8%. No patient suffered from fecal impaction. Followup was complete in 97.2%. Eight patients (3.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-6.4) developed superficial wound infections. In three patients there was leakage from an extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis, in two of them after hospital discharge. The overall anastomotic failure rate was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3-3.6). The in-hospital mortality rate was 0.8% (95% CI: 0.1-2.9) and was not related to abdominal or septic complications. CONCLUSION Mechanical bowel preparation is not a sine qua non for safe colorectal surgery.
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to assess recent literature regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy and surgery. METHODS The study was conducted by an Index Medicus English-language search of articles relevant to both oral mechanical and parenteral and oral antibiotic preparation for elective colorectal surgery and mechanical bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The study period was from 1975 to 2000. In addition, studies of elective colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation were also considered. RESULTS Although several recent prospective, randomized trials have suggested that elective colorectal surgery can be safely performed without any mechanical bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation remains the standard of care, at least in North America at the present time. A recent survey of the members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons revealed that the majority currently use sodium phosphate for bowel preparation and use a dual oral antibiotic regimen before elective colorectal surgery, combined with two doses of parenteral antibiotics. Although some of the use patterns are based on prospective, randomized study, others seem founded strictly on habit and theory. CONCLUSIONS The current methods of bowel cleansing for both colonoscopy and surgery include sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol; colorectal surgeons practicing in North America currently prefer sodium phosphate. Additional preparation for colorectal surgery includes perioperative parenteral antibiotics and, to a slightly lesser degree, preoperative oral antibiotic preparation. Although some recent prospective, randomized studies have suggested that omission of mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery is not only feasible but potentially preferable, caution is recommended before routinely omitting these widely practiced measures, because data to support such routine omission are limited.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Zmora
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida 33331, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
Constipation is a common symptom that may be idiopathic or due to various identifiable disease processes. Laxatives are agents that add bulk to intestinal contents, that retain water within the bowel lumen by virtue of osmotic effects, or that stimulate intestinal secretion or motility, thereby increasing the frequency and ease of defecation. Drugs which improve constipation by stimulating gastrointestinal motility by direct actions on the enteric nervous system are under development. Other modalities used to treat constipation include biofeedback and surgery. Laxatives and lavage solutions are also used for colon preparation and evacuation of the bowels after toxic ingestions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L R Schiller
- Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75246, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
Laxatives and lavage solutions are used in the treatment of constipation and toxic ingestion and also for preparation of the colon before endoscopic or surgical procedures. Several different categories of agents are available for use. These include bulking agents, osmotic agents, secretagogues and agents with direct effects on epithelial nerve or smooth muscle cells, and lubricating agents. Each category has different pharmacologic effects, side effects, and clinical indications. This review summarizes current information about these agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L R Schiller
- Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75246, USA
| |
Collapse
|