Metabolic and Nutritional Issues after Lower Digestive Tract Surgery: The Important Role of the Dietitian in a Multidisciplinary Setting.

Many patients undergo small bowel and colon surgery for reasons related to malignancy, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), mesenteric ischemia, and other benign conditions, including post-operative adhesions, hernias, trauma, volvulus, or diverticula. Some patients arrive in the operating theatre severely malnourished due to an underlying disease, while others develop complications (e.g., anastomotic leaks, abscesses, or strictures) that induce a systemic inflammatory response that can increase their energy and protein requirements. Finally, anatomical and functional changes resulting from surgery can affect either nutritional status due to malabsorption or nutritional support (NS) pathways. The dietitian providing NS to these patients needs to understand the pathophysiology underlying these sequelae and collaborate with other professionals, including surgeons, internists, nurses, and pharmacists. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the nutritional and metabolic consequences of different types of lower gastrointestinal surgery and the role of the dietitian in providing comprehensive patient care. This article reviews the effects of small bowel resection on macronutrient and micronutrient absorption, the effects of colectomies (e.g., ileocolectomy, low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, and proctocolectomy) that require special dietary considerations, nutritional considerations specific to ostomized patients, and clinical practice guidelines for caregivers of patients who have undergone a surgery for local and systemic complications of IBD. Finally, we highlight the valuable contribution of the dietitian in the challenging management of short bowel syndrome and intestinal failure.

The Gluten-Free Diet for Celiac Disease: Critical Insights to Better Understand Clinical Outcomes.

The gluten-free diet (GFD) remains a complex paradigm in managing celiac disease (CeD) in children and adults, and there are many reasons why GFD adherence should be strict to improve outcomes. However, this is a challenging task for patients, since they need to have access to quality healthcare resources that facilitate optimal GFD adherence. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the GFD, tackling coexisting nutritional deficiencies, and dealing with complex situations, such as seronegative CeD or non-responsive CeD, all require the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. The short- and long-term follow-up of CeD patients should preferably be performed by a combined Gastroenterology and Nutrition service with well-defined quality standards and the multidisciplinary involvement of physicians, nurses, dietitians, and psychologists. Nutritional advice and counseling by an experienced dietitian can reduce the costs associated with long-term follow-up of CeD patients. Likewise, psychological interventions may be essential in specific scenarios where implementing and sustaining a lifelong GFD can cause a significant psychological burden for patients. This manuscript aims to provide guidelines to improve clinical practice in the follow-up and monitoring of CeD patients and provide information on the nutritional risks of an ill-advised GFD. Clinicians, biochemists, food technologists, dietitians, and psychologists with a global view of the disease have been involved in its writing.

A dietitian-led coeliac service helps to identify and reduce involuntary gluten ingestion with subsequent reduction in the frequency of repeat endoscopies.

BACKGROUND: Dietitian-led coeliac clinics have the potential to be a cost-effective way of monitoring patients living with coeliac disease (CD). The aim of this service evaluation was to explore the impact of a dietitian-led coeliac clinic on gluten-free diet (GFD) adherence and the frequency of endoscopies with repeat duodenal biopsies. METHODS: Adults with biopsy-proven CD were transferred to a new dietitian-led coeliac clinic where data were collected from medical records and analysed using SPSS. GFD adherence was assessed by a specialist dietitian, specialist nurse, consultant gastroenterologists and a validated GFD adherence questionnaire. Repeat duodenal biopsy findings were compared with the most recent dietitian GFD adherence assessment. Project and ethics approval was granted by the hospital trust and affiliated university. RESULTS: Data from 170 patients (White: 51%, South Asian: 45%) are presented, with most being 35-64 years old (61%). Specialist dietitian assessments identified 67 (39%) of patients were adhering to the GFD, whereas prior gastroenterologist or coeliac nurse assessments identified 122 (72%) (p < 0.001) and the validated GFD adherence questionnaire identified 97 (57%) (p < 0.001). Dietitian assessments identified involuntary gluten consumption in 39/104 (38%) of those who self-reported GFD adherence, consequently avoiding the need for nine endoscopies with repeat duodenal biopsies once patients had received dietary education from the dietitian. On follow-up, within the dietitian-led coeliac clinic, significantly fewer patients consumed gluten involuntarily (14%, p < 0.001). In addition, a reduction in voluntary gluten consumption was observed from three to five to one to two times per month (p < 0.001) in 66 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The dietitian-led coeliac clinic helped to identify involuntary gluten ingestion, avoid repeat endoscopies with duodenal biopsies and was associated with significantly improved GFD adherence.