Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery : A Randomized Trial on Short-Term Outcome

Wound infection after clean surgery is an expensive and often underestimated cause of patient morbidity, and the benefits of using prophylactic antibiotics have not been proven. Warming patients during colorectal surgery has been shown to reduce infection rates. We aimed to assess whether warming patients before short duration, clean surgery would have the same effect. 421 patients having clean (breast, varicose vein, or hernia) surgery were randomly assigned to either a non-warmed (standard) group or one of two warmed groups (local and systemic). We applied warming for at least 30 min before surgery. Patients were followed up and masked outcome assessments made at 2 and 6 weeks. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. We identified 19 wound infections in 139 non-warmed patients (14%) but only 13 in 277 who received warming (5%; p=0.001). Wound scores were also significantly lower (p=0.007) in warmed patients. There was no significant difference in the development of haematomas or seromas after surgery but the non-warmed group were prescribed significantly more postoperative antibiotics (p=0.002). Warming patients before clean surgery seems to aid the prevention of postoperative wound infection. If applied according to the manufacturers guidelines these therapies have no known side-effects and might, with the support of further studies, provide an alternative to prophylactic antibiotics in this type of surgery.

Perioperative nutrition with specialized enteral diets improves outcome when compared with standard formulas. A post-hoc analysis suggested preoperative administration as the most important period. Thus, we designed a study to understand prospectively whether preoperative supplementation could be as efficacious as the perioperative approach and superior to a conventional treatment (no artificial nutrition) in reducing postoperative infections and length of hospital stay. A total of 305 patients with preoperative weight loss <10% and cancer of the gastrointestinal tract were randomized to receive the following: (1) oral supplementation for 5 days before surgery with 1 L/day of a formula enriched with arginine, omega-3 fatty acids, and RNA, with no nutritional support given after surgery (preoperative group, n = 102); (2) the same preoperative treatment plus postoperative jejunal infusion with the same enriched formula (perioperative group, n = 101); and (3) no artificial nutrition before and after surgery (conventional group; n = 102). The 3 groups were comparable for all baseline and surgical characteristics. Intention-to-treat analysis showed a 13.7% incidence of postoperative infections in the preoperative group, 15.8% in the perioperative group, and 30.4% in the conventional group (P = 0.006 vs. preoperative; P = 0.02 vs. perioperative). Length of hospital stay was 11.6 +/- 4.7 days in the preoperative group, 12.2 +/- 4.1 days in the perioperative group, and 14.0 +/- 7.7 days in the conventional group (P = 0.008 vs. preoperative and P = 0.03 vs. perioperative). Preoperative supplementation is as effective as perioperative administration in improving outcome. Both strategies seem superior to the conventional approach.

Although current opinion favours the use of enteral over parenteral nutrition, the clinical benefits of early postoperative nutrition in patients undergoing elective surgery have never been clearly shown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that postoperative enteral nutrition is better (fewer postoperative complications) than parenteral nutrition containing similar energy and nitrogen amounts (112 kJ kg(-1) day(-1) and 1.4 g aminoacid kg(-1) day(-1)). We did a randomised multicentre clinical trial in patients with gastrointestinal cancer who were malnourished and candidates for major elective surgery. 159 patients were assigned to enteral nutrition and 158 to parenteral nutrition. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative complications, and secondary endpoints were length of postoperative hospital stay, adverse effects, and treatment crossover. Analysis was by intention to treat. Postoperative complications occurred in 54 (34%) patients fed enterally versus 78 (49%) fed parenterally (relative risk 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, p=0.005). Length of postoperative stay was 13.4 days and 15.0 days in the enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition groups, respectively (p=0.009). Adverse effects occurred in 56 (35%) patients fed enterally versus 22 (14%) patients fed parenterally (2.50, 1.61-3.86, p<0.0001). 14 (9%) patients on enteral nutrition had to switch to parenteral nutrition, whereas none of those fed parenterally crossed over to enteral feeding. We conclude that early enteral nutrition significantly reduces the complication rate and duration of postoperative stay compared with parenteral nutrition, although parenteral nutrition is better tolerated than enteral nutrition.