World journal of gastroenterology · 2016
Early enteral nutrition vs parenteral nutrition following pancreaticoduodenectomy: Experience from a single center.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lu Jian-Wen, Liu Chang, Du Zhao-Qing, Liu Xue-Min, Lv Yi, Zhang Xu-Feng
Аннотация
AIM: To analyze and compare postoperative morbidity between patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and early enteral nutrition supplemented with parenteral nutrition (EEN + PN).
METHODS: Three hundred and forty patients receiving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) from 2009 to 2013 at our center were enrolled retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups depending on postoperative nutrition support scheme: an EEN + PN group (n = 87) and a TPN group (n = 253). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative biochemical parameters, pathological diagnosis, intraoperative information, and postoperative complications of the two groups were analyzed.
RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in demographic characteristics, preoperative comorbidities, preoperative biochemical parameters or pathological findings (P > 0.05 for all). However, patients with EEN + PN following PD had a higher incidence of delayed gastric emptying (16.1% vs 6.7%, P = 0.016), pulmonary infection (10.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.024), and probably intraperitoneal infection (18.4% vs 10.3%, P = 0.059), which might account for their longer nasogastric tube retention time (9 d vs 5 d, P = 0.006), postoperative hospital stay (25 d vs 20 d, P = 0.055) and higher hospitalization expenses (USD10397 vs USD8663.9, P = 0.008), compared to those with TPN.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that TPN might be safe and sufficient for patient recovery after PD. Postoperative EEN should only be performed scrupulously and selectively.
METHODS: Three hundred and forty patients receiving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) from 2009 to 2013 at our center were enrolled retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups depending on postoperative nutrition support scheme: an EEN + PN group (n = 87) and a TPN group (n = 253). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative biochemical parameters, pathological diagnosis, intraoperative information, and postoperative complications of the two groups were analyzed.
RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in demographic characteristics, preoperative comorbidities, preoperative biochemical parameters or pathological findings (P > 0.05 for all). However, patients with EEN + PN following PD had a higher incidence of delayed gastric emptying (16.1% vs 6.7%, P = 0.016), pulmonary infection (10.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.024), and probably intraperitoneal infection (18.4% vs 10.3%, P = 0.059), which might account for their longer nasogastric tube retention time (9 d vs 5 d, P = 0.006), postoperative hospital stay (25 d vs 20 d, P = 0.055) and higher hospitalization expenses (USD10397 vs USD8663.9, P = 0.008), compared to those with TPN.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that TPN might be safe and sufficient for patient recovery after PD. Postoperative EEN should only be performed scrupulously and selectively.