Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Facet joint arthrosis is a progressive degenerative disease that is frequently associated with other spinal degenerative disorders such as degenerative disc disease or spinal stenosis. Lumbar facet joint arthrosis can induce pain in the proximal lower extremities. However, symptoms and imaging findings of “facet joint syndrome” are not specific as they mimic the pain from herniated discs or nerve root compression. Currently, evidence for therapeutic intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is still considered low, with a weak recommendation strength. Nevertheless, some studies have reported therapeutic effectiveness of facet joint injections. Moreover, the use of therapeutic facet joint injections in clinical practice has increased. This review article includes opinions based on the authors’ experience with facet joint injections. This review primarily aimed to investigate the efficacy of lumbar facet joint injections and consider their associated safety aspects.

The collision cross-sections(CCS)measurement using ion mobility spectrometry(IMS)in combination with mass spectrometry(MS)offers a great opportunity to increase confidence in metabolite identifi-cation.However,owing to the lack of sensitivity and resolution,IMS has an analytical challenge in studying the CCS values of very low-molecular-weight metabolites(VLMs ≤ 250 Da).Here,we describe an analytical method using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography(UPLC)coupled to a traveling wave ion mobility-quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometer optimized for the measurement of VLMs in human urine samples.The experimental CCS values,along with mass spectral properties,were reported for the 174 metabolites.The experimental data included the mass-to-charge ratio(m/z),retention time(RT),tandem MS(MS/MS)spectra,and CCS values.Among the studied metabolites,263 traveling wave ion mobility spectrometry(TWIMS)-derived CCS values(TWCCSN2)were reported for the first time,and more than 70％of these were CCS values of VLMs.The TWCCSN2 values were highly repeatable,with inter-day variations of＜1％relative standard deviation(RSD).The developed method revealed excellent TWCCSN2 accuracy with a CCS difference(△CCS)within±2％of the reported drift tube IMS(DTIMS)and TWIMS CCS values.The complexity of the urine matrix did not affect the precision of the method,as evidenced by △CCS within±1.92％.According to the Metabolomics Standards Initiative,55 urinary metabolites were identified with a confidence level of 1.Among these 55 metabolites,53(96％)were VLMs.The larger number of confirmed compounds found in this study was a result of the addition of TWCCSN2 values,which clearly increased metabolite identification confidence.

Facet joint arthrosis is a progressive degenerative disease that is frequently associated with other spinal degenerative disorders such as degenerative disc disease or spinal stenosis. Lumbar facet joint arthrosis can induce pain in the proximal lower extremities. However, symptoms and imaging findings of “facet joint syndrome” are not specific as they mimic the pain from herniated discs or nerve root compression. Currently, evidence for therapeutic intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is still considered low, with a weak recommendation strength. Nevertheless, some studies have reported therapeutic effectiveness of facet joint injections. Moreover, the use of therapeutic facet joint injections in clinical practice has increased. This review article includes opinions based on the authors’ experience with facet joint injections. This review primarily aimed to investigate the efficacy of lumbar facet joint injections and consider their associated safety aspects.

Facet joint arthrosis is a progressive degenerative disease that is frequently associated with other spinal degenerative disorders such as degenerative disc disease or spinal stenosis. Lumbar facet joint arthrosis can induce pain in the proximal lower extremities. However, symptoms and imaging findings of “facet joint syndrome” are not specific as they mimic the pain from herniated discs or nerve root compression. Currently, evidence for therapeutic intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is still considered low, with a weak recommendation strength. Nevertheless, some studies have reported therapeutic effectiveness of facet joint injections. Moreover, the use of therapeutic facet joint injections in clinical practice has increased. This review article includes opinions based on the authors’ experience with facet joint injections. This review primarily aimed to investigate the efficacy of lumbar facet joint injections and consider their associated safety aspects.