RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Hyperthermic preconditioning has been shown to protect against different insults in experimental studies. However, clinical studies assessing its effects remain limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of hyperthermic preconditioning on the rate of surgical site infection and inflammatory reaction in patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer, scheduled to undergo elective surgery were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Patients were randomly assigned to either the hyperthermic preconditioning group or control group. Postoperative superficial and deep surgical site infection were recorded. Blood samples were collected from all the patients in the hyperthermic preconditioning group prior to the application of hyperthermia 12 h before surgery, immediately prior to surgery, and 4 h and 24 h postoperatively. For the control group, blood samples were obtained within the same periods without the application of hyperthermia. Levels of interleukin-1, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α were measured from blood samples. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomized to the hyperthermic preconditioning group and 21 to the control group. No significant difference was found in deep or superficial surgical site infection between the groups. No significant difference in the tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1, and IL-6 levels was found in serum samples collected before hyperthermia, during the operation, and postoperatively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that hyperthermic preconditioning has no effect on the surgical site infection and cytokine response in patients undergoing elective surgical intervention for colorectal cancer.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the perioperative nutritional status of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer using Subjective Global Assessment and surgeon behavior on nutritional support. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We recruited 100 patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer in one university and two state teaching hospitals. Subjective Global Assessment was administered to evaluate preoperative and postoperative nutritional status. Fifty-two patients in the state hospitals (Group 1) and 48 in the university hospital were assessed. Anthropometric and biochemical measurements were performed. Changes in preoperative Subjective Global Assessment scores and scores at the time of discharge and types of nutritional support were compared. Subjective Global Assessment-B was regarded as moderate and Subjective Global Assessment-C as heavy malnutrition. RESULTS: Ten patients had Subjective Global Assessment-B and 29 had Subjective Global Assessment-C malnutrition in Group 1 and nine had Subjective Global Assessment-B and 31 had Subjective Global Assessment-C malnutrition in Group 2 during preoperative assessment. Respective numbers in postoperative assessment were 12 for Subjective Global Assessment-B and 30 for Subjective Global Assessment-C in Group 1 and 14 for Subjective Global Assessment-B and 26 for Subjective Global Assessment-C in Group 2. There was no difference between two groups. Nutritional methods according to Subjective Global Assessment evaluation in pre- and postoperative periods were not different between the groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the malnutrition rate is high among patients scheduled for gastrointestinal cancer surgery and the number of surgeons were inadequate to provide perioperative nutritional support. Both university and state hospitals had similar shortcomings. Subjective Global Assessment is an easy and reliable test and if utilized will be helpful to detect patients requiring nutritional support.