Post-operative CRP is an accurate negative predictive test for the development of AL following oesophago-gastric surgery. It may help to discriminate between patients with a high risk of leak and those in which AL is unlikely to occur.
Background: Oesophagectomy for locally advanced cancer carries high rates of morbidity and mortality. Patients require a thorough risk assessment alongside preoperative counselling. Total psoas area (TPA) measurements have been used as a surrogate marker of sarcopenia to predict post-operative complications in oesophageal cancer patients. No studies to date have determined whether there is an association between the proportion of TPA lost during neoadjuvant therapy and post-operative outcomes. Methods: Clinical data and imaging of patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by open two-stage oesophagectomy between January 2008 and April 2018 were analysed retrospectively. Patients who did not undergo restaging computed tomography scan prior to surgery were excluded from the study. The TPA was measured on two crosssectional slices at L4 on computed tomography scans pre-and post-neoadjuvant therapy. Results: A total of 53 patients who met inclusion criteria were identified. The mean loss of TPA was 7.3%. Patients who had a decrease of TPA of more than 4% had significantly increased 30-day mortality compared to those who lost 4% or less (24% versus 0%, P = 0.02). Patients aged over 65 years who also had a loss of TPA >4% had significantly increased 30-day mortality (37% versus 2.9%, odds ratio 19, P = 0.008). Conclusion: A decrease in TPA of >4% is associated with a significantly higher risk of post-operative mortality in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy followed by oesophagectomy. Measuring the loss of TPA during neoadjuvant treatment could be a novel aid to preoperative risk assessment.
Background
Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery.
Methods
A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury.
Results
A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001).
Conclusion
NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.