Home    中文  
 
  • Search
  • lucene Search
  • Citation
  • Fig/Tab
  • Adv Search
Just Accepted  |  Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Featured Articles  |  Most Read  |  Most Download  |  Most Cited

Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition) ›› 2015, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (06): 451-458. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2015.06.009

Special Issue:

• Original Article • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Analysis of short- and long-term outcomes in colorectal cancer patients with different bowel preparations after radical surgery: a single-center randomized controlled trial

Jun Fan1, Ci Li2, Shasha Xing3, Jiatian Yuan1, Bo Lyu1, Shusheng Leng1, Shuqiang Li1, Bing Wang1, Yunlong Zeng1, Jihong Xiang1, Ang Zhao1, Jun Li1,()   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Affiliated Hospital/Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu 610081, China
    2. Department of Pathology, Affiliated Hospital/Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu 610081, China
    3. Department of Central Lab, Affiliated Hospital/Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu 610081, China
  • Received:2015-08-25 Online:2015-12-01 Published:2015-12-01
  • Contact: Jun Li
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Li Jun, Email:

Abstract:

Objective

To compare preoperative enteral nutrition (EN) , rapid bowel preparation (RBP) and traditional bowel preparation (TBP) on postoperative short- and long-term outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

Methods

One hundred and eighty-three CRC patients underwent radical excision from March 2011 to February 2013. They were randomly divided into EN group, RBP group and TBP group, and outcomes in the three groups were assessed.

Results

Patients’tolerance in EN group was better than the other two groups (95.1%, 83.6% and 52.5%, P<0.01) . The adverse events rate of the three groups, including abdominal pain/abdominal distension and nausea/vomiting, was 6.6%, 14.8% and 23.6%, respectively (P<0.01) . The rate of edema of bowel wall in EN group was lower than that in RBP group, which was lower than in TBP group (P<0.01) . The diarrhea rate of three groups was 6.6%, 11.5% and 24.6%, respectively (P=0.013) . The risk of biochemical disorders of preoperative anesthesia, 1, 3 and 5 days after surgery in EN group was lower than other two groups, and TBP group had the greatest risk of biochemical disorders. Postoperative complications, including wound infection, abdominal infection and anastomotic leakage, were 9.8%, 11.5% and 14.8%, respectively (P=0.679) . The frequency of tumor cells in peritoneal/intestinal cavity tumor cells of the three groups were 3.3%, 13.1% and 18.0% (P=0.039) . The 3-year local recurrence (LR) and/or distant metastasis (DM) in three groups were 13.1%, 18.0% and 14.8%, respectively (P=0.744) . Intestinal function recovery time and hospital stay differences among groups were statistically different (P=0.043, 0.037, respectively) .

Conclusions

EN, RBP and TBP regimens are safe and effective in preoperative bowel preparation for colorectal cancer. In patients with EN, the degree of tolerance, intestinal clearance, postoperative complications were comparable to RBP and TBP. Edema of bowel wall in EN regimen was lower. Although the EN regimen can effectively reduce the incidence of peritoneal/intestinal cavity tumor cells, it can not improve the long-term prognosis of colorectal cancer.

Key words: Colorectal neoplasms, Bowel preparation, Prognosis

京ICP 备07035254号-20
Copyright © Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 020-87331056 E-mail: pwwxcma2007@126.com
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd