Cheng‐Le Zhuang

Currently, the association between sarcopenia and long-term prognosis after gastric cancer surgery has not been investigated. Moreover, the association between sarcopenia and postoperative complications remains controversial. This large-scale retrospective study aims to ascertain the prevalence of sarcopenia and assess its impact on postoperative complications and long-term survival in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. From December 2008 to April 2013, the clinical data of all patients who underwent elective radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer were collected prospectively. Only patients with available preoperative abdominal CT scan within 30 days of surgery were considered for analysis. Skeletal muscle mass was determined by abdominal (computed tomography) CT scan, and sarcopenia was diagnosed by the cut-off values obtained by means of optimum stratification. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluating risk factors of postoperative complications and long-term survival were performed. A total of 937 patients were included in this study, and 389 (41.5%) patients were sarcopenic based on the diagnostic cut-off values (34.9 cm²/m² for women and 40.8 cm²/m² for men). Sarcopenia was an independent risk factor for severe postoperative complications (OR = 3.010, P < 0.001), but not for total complications. However, sarcopenia did not show significant association with operative mortality. Moreover, sarcopenia was an independent predictor for poorer overall survival (HR = 1.653, P < 0.001) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.620, P < 0.001). Under the adjusted tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, sarcopenia remained an independent risk factor for overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with TNM stage II and III, but not in patients with TNM stage I. Sarcopenia is an independent predictive factor of severe postoperative complications after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Moreover, sarcopenia is independently associated with overall and disease-free survival in patients with TNM stage II and III, but not in patients with TNM stage I.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs in colorectal surgery aim to attenuate the surgical stress response, reduce complications and shorten hospital stay. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery programs in colorectal surgery in comparison with traditional care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were electronically searched (date range, January 1966 to July 2012). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials were selected that compared enhanced recovery after surgery programs with traditional care in elective colorectal surgery. INTERVENTION: Articles were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers, who extracted the data and assessed the quality of the included studies. The outcome measures were analyzed, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were primary and total postoperative hospital stay, readmission rates, total postoperative complications (including general and surgical complications), and mortality. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (total, 1910 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with traditional care, enhanced recovery after surgery programs were associated with significantly decreased primary hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -2.44 days; 95% CI, -3.06 to -1.83 days; p < 0.00001), total hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -2.39 days; 95% CI, -3.70 to -1.09 days; p = 0.0003), total complications (relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; p = 0.0006), and general complications (relative risk, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found for readmission rates, surgical complications, and mortality. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the risk of bias in most included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs are safe and effective, and increased implementation is justified for perioperative care in colorectal surgery. Future studies may examine the benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery programs in elderly patients and in other GI surgery.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of early oral feeding after colorectal surgery has not been determined. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate surgical outcomes following early oral feeding compared with traditional oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes following early oral feeding versus traditional oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. The trials must have reported at least one of the following end points: anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia, wound infection, nasogastric tube reinsertion, vomiting, mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, and quality of life. RESULTS: Seven trials, which included a total of 587 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Compared with traditional oral feeding, early oral feeding reduced the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.58 days; 95% CI -2.77 to -0.39; p = 0.009) and the total postoperative complications (relative risk 0.70; 95% CI 0.50-0.98; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the risk of anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia, wound infection, rate of nasogastric tube reinsertion, vomiting, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early oral feeding is safe and effective in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.