1.Prevalences of oligozoospermia and azoospermia in male partners of infertile couples from different parts of India.
Rajvi H MEHTA ; Sanjay MAKWANA ; Geetha M RANGA ; R J SRINIVASAN ; S S VIRK
Asian Journal of Andrology 2006;8(1):89-93
AIMTo determine whether there was any regional variation in the prevalence of azoospermia, oligozoospermia and mean sperm counts in male partners of infertile couples from different parts of India.
METHODSData on 16,714 semen samples analyzed over the past five years from six different laboratories located in five cities of India were collated and evaluated.
RESULTSThere was a regional variation in the prevalence of azoospermia. The prevalence of azoospermia was extremely high in Kurnool and Jodhpur (38.3% and 37.4%, respectively). There was also a regional variation in the prevalence of oligozoospermia (51%) in Kurnool. There was no significant difference in the mean sperm counts in normospermic men.
CONCLUSIONThere is a regional variation in the prevalence of azoospermia and oligozoospermia in the male partners of infertile couples from different regions of India. The prevalence of azoospermia in Kurnool and Jodhpur is higher than any other worldwide reported literature. Further studies need to be carried out to determine the cause of this.
Cottonseed Oil ; adverse effects ; Fluorides ; adverse effects ; Humans ; India ; epidemiology ; Infertility, Male ; epidemiology ; Male ; Oligospermia ; epidemiology ; Pesticides ; adverse effects ; Prevalence
2.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
3.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
4.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
5.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.