Pancreatic cancer surgery and nutrition management: a review of the current literature

Surgery remains the only curative treatment for pancreaticobiliary tumors. These patients typically present in a malnourished state. Various screening tools have been employed to help with preoperative risk stratification. Examples include the subjective global assessment (SGA), malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST), and nutritional risk index (NRI). Adequate studies have not been performed to determine if perioperative interventions, based on nutrition risk assessment, result in less morbidity and mortality. The routine use of gastric decompression with nasogastric sump tubes may be unnecessary following elective pancreatic resections. Instead, placement should be selective and employed on a case-by-case basis. A wide variety of feeding modalities are available, oral nutrition being the most effective. Artificial nutrition may be provided by temporary nasal tube (nasogastric, nasojejunal, or combined nasogastrojejunal tube) or surgically placed tube [gastrostomy (GT), jejunostomy (JT), gastrojejunostomy tubes (GJT)], and intravenously (parenteral nutrition, PN). The optimal tube for enteral feeding cannot be determined based on current data. Each is associated with a specific set of complications. Dual lumen tubes may be useful in the presence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) as the stomach may be decompressed while feeds are delivered to the jejunum. However, all feeding tubes placed in the small intestine, except direct jejunostomies, commonly dislodge and retroflex into the stomach. Jejunostomies are associated with less frequent, but more serious complications. These include intestinal torsion and bowel necrosis. PN is associated with septic, metabolic, and access-related complications and should be the feeding strategy of last-resort. Enteral feeds are clearly preferred over parental nutrition. A sound understanding of perioperative nutrition may improve patient outcomes. Patients undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery should undergo multidisciplinary nutrition screening and intervention, and the surgical/oncological team should include nutrition professionals in managing these patients in the perioperative period.     

Obesity does not increase morbidity of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Obesity has historically been a positive predictor of surgical morbidity, especially in the morbidly obese. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes of obese patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

We reviewed 1382 consecutive patients retrospectively who underwent LC for various pathologies from January 2008 to August 2011. Patients were stratified based on the World Health Organization definitions of obesity: nonobese (body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m²), obesity class I (BMI 30–34.9 kg/m²), obesity class II (BMI 35–39.9 kg/m²), and obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²). The primary end points were conversion rates and surgical morbidity. The secondary end point was length of stay.

Results

There were significantly more females in the obesity II and III groups (P = 0.0002). American Society of Anesthesiologists scores were significantly higher in the obesity I, II, and III groups compared with the nonobese (P < 0.05; P < 0.01; and P < 0.0001, respectively). Independent predictors of conversion on multivariate analysis (MVA) included age (P = 0.01), acute cholecystitis (P = 0.03), operative time (P < 0.0001), blood loss (P < 0.0001), and fellowship-trained surgeons (P < 0.0001). Independent predictors of intraoperative complications on MVA included age (P = 0.009), white patients (P = 0.009), previous surgery (P = 0.001), operative time (P < 0.0001), and blood loss (P = 0.01). Independent predictors of postoperative complications on MVA included American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P < 0.0001), acute cholecystitis (P < 0.0001), and a postoperative complication (P < 0.0001). BMI was not a predictor of conversions or surgical morbidity. Length of stay was not significantly different between the four groups.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that overall conversion rates and surgical morbidity are relatively low following LC, even in obese and morbidly obese patients.     

Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Minimally Invasive Surgery Training Improves Outcomes in Basic Laparoscopic Procedures

Background

To determine whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training improves outcomes in laparoscopic appendectomy, a procedure that is commonly performed in general surgery training.

Methods

Retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis between 2014 and 2015 at a single-center, tertiary-care academic institution. Patients operated on by MIS-trained surgeons (MIS group) were compared to those operated on by general surgeons (GS group). Single-incision and multiport laparoscopic appendectomies were included; open approach, known malignancy, and interval appendectomies were excluded.

Results

A total of 507 patients were included in the study: 181 patients in the MIS group and 326 in the GS group. There were no differences in patient demographics or medical comorbidities between groups and most patients were ASA class 1 or 2. Patients operated on by MIS-trained surgeons had significantly shorter operative time (43 min, IQR 32–60 vs. 58 min, IQR 44–81; p < 0.001) and fewer intra-operative adverse events (0/181 vs. 8/326, 2.5%; p = 0.03). There was no difference in number of postoperative adverse events between groups (6/181, 3.3% vs. 21/326, 6.4%; p = 0.13). In the MIS group, subgroup analysis of single-incision versus multiport appendectomy showed no differences in intra-operative or postoperative adverse events. On multivariable linear regression, lack of MIS training and traditional multiport approach had the greatest effects on prolonging operative time (11.2 and 12.8 min, respectively; p = 0.001).

Conclusions

MIS fellowship improves operative metrics and patient outcomes even in basic laparoscopy.

     

A Randomized,Double-Blind,Placebo-Controlled Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen on Hospital Length of Stay in Obese Individuals Undergoing Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background

Retrospective studies indicate that acetaminophen iv administration reduces hospital length of stay (LoS) and opiate consumption in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Objective

This study sought to determine whether using acetaminophen iv in morbidly obese subjects undergoing sleeve gastrectomy decreased LoS and total hospital charges as compared to patients receiving saline placebo.

Setting

Single-center university hospital

Methods

Using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, subjects were assigned to receive either acetaminophen iv (group A) or saline placebo iv (group P). Data were collected between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2016. Group A received acetaminophen every 6 h for a total of four doses. The first dose was administered following the induction of general anesthesia; group P received saline iv on the same schedule. Anesthetic management and prophylactic antiemetic regimen were standardized in all subjects. Postoperative pain management consisted of hydromorphone via patient-controlled infusion pump. Primary outcomes include hospital LoS and associated hospital costs. Secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction and postoperative nausea and pain scores.

Results

Subject demographics (n?=?127) and intraoperative management were similar in the two groups. Across all subjects, median hospital LoS in group A (n?=?63) was 1.87 vs. 1.97 days in group P (n?=?64) (p?=?0.03, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Postoperatively, daily quality-of-recovery (QoR-15) scores, narcotic consumption, and the use of rescue antiemetics were not significantly different between groups. Median hospital costs were as follows: group A, $12,885 vs. group P, $12,977 (n?=?64).

Conclusions

Acetaminophen iv may reduce hospital LoS in subjects undergoing sleeve gastrectomy.

     

Gastroesophageal reflux disease: A review of surgical decision making

Gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD) is a very common disorder with increasing prevalence. It is estimated that up to 20%-25% of Americans experience symptoms of GERD weekly. Excessive reflux of acidic often with alkaline bile salt gastric and duodenal contents results in a multitude of symptoms for the patient including heartburn, regurgitation, cough, and dysphagia. There are also associated complications of GERD including erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, stricture and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. While first line treatments for GERD involve mainly lifestyle and non-surgical therapies, surgical interventions have proven to be effective in appropriate circumstances. Anti-reflux operations are aimed at creating an effective barrier to reflux at the gastroesophageal junction and thus attempt to improve physiologic and mechanical issues that may be involved in the pathogenesis of GERD. The decision for surgical intervention in the treatment of GERD, moreover, requires an objective confirmation of the diagnosis. Confirmation is achieved using various preoperative evaluations including: ambulatory p H monitoring, esophageal manometry, upper endoscopy(esophagogastroduodenoscopy) and barium swallow. Upon confirmation of the diagnosis and with appropriate patient criteria met, an antireflux operation is a good alternative to prolonged medical therapy. Currently, minimally invasive gastroesophageal fundoplication is the gold standard for surgical intervention of GERD. Our review outlines the many factors that are involved in surgical decisionmaking. We will review the prominent features that reflect appropriate anti-reflux surgery and present suggestions that are pertinent to surgical practices, based on evidence-based studies.     

Cefepime Dosing in the Morbidly Obese Patient Population

Proper dosing of specific antibiotics in morbidly obese patients has been studied inadequately. However, these data are beneficial as this patient population is at an increased risk to develop postoperative infections. Cefepime is an antibiotic used for the treatment of both gram-positive and especially gram-negative infections; administration of the appropriate dose in the morbidly obese population is crucial. We therefore examined the pharmacokinetics of cefepime in patients with body mass index >40 kg/m². Ten morbidly obese patients, with a mean [±SD] estimated glomerular filtration rate of 108.4 ± 34.6 mL/min, undergoing elective weight loss surgical procedures were administered cefepime in addition to standard prophylactic cefazolin and studied. Serial serum cefepime concentrations were analyzed after dosing using a validated high performance liquid chromatography method. Pharmacokinetics and duration above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) were determined using a protein binding value of 15% and a MIC threshold of 8 μg/mL. Mean free cefepime concentrations for t = 30, 120, and 360 min were 69.6, 31.6, and 9.2 μg/mL, respectively. The dosing interval was calculated to maintain the free concentration above the MIC (fT > MIC) for 60% of the interval. This was determined to be 10.12 h, including time for infusion. There was no toxicity. Based on this analysis, an increased dose of 2 g every 8 h is necessary to maintain an adequate fT > MIC throughout the dosing interval. Further studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this regimen in the settings of active infections and critical illness.