Surgical resection plays pivotal role in the treatment of gastric cancer. Adequate preoperative evaluation, precise intraoperative maneuver and delicate postoperative management lay the foundation for successful gastrectomy. The aim of preoperative evaluation is to stage tumor and identify potential risk factors (including preoperative factors like age, ASA status, body mass index, comorbidity, hypoalbuminemia, and intraoperative factors like blood loss and combined resection) which could lead to postoperative complication. With the management of prehabilitation, adequate medical decision could be made and patient's fast recovery could be ensured. With the rapid adoption of ERAS concept, there is increasing attention to prehabilitation which focus on optimization of cardio-pulmonary capacity and muscular-skeletal capacity. Despite of the efficacy of prehabilitation demonstrated by randomized controlled trials, consensus has yet to be reached on the following items: specific intervention, optimal measurement, candidate population and optimal timing for intervention. Balancing the efficiency and safety, preoperative evaluation could be put into clinical practice smoothly.
Humans ; Stomach Neoplasms/complications* ; Preoperative Care/adverse effects* ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Risk Factors

For elective surgery of colorectal cancer, current evidence supports preoperative mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics. Meanwhile, for patients with varied degrees of intestinal stenosis, individualized protocol is required to avoid adverse events. We hereby summarize recent high-quality evidences and updates of guidelines and consensus, and recommend stratified bowel preparation based on the clinical practice of our institute as follows. (1) For patients with unimpaired oral intake, whose tumor can be passed by colonoscopy, mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics are given. (2) For patients without symptoms of bowel obstruction but with impaired oral intake or incomplete colonoscopy due to tumor-related stenosis, small-dosage laxative is given for several days before surgery, and oral antibiotics the day before surgery. (3) For patients with bowel obstruction, mechanical bowel preparation or enema is not indicated. We proposed this evidence-based, individualized protocol for preoperative bowel preparation for the reference of our colleagues, in the hope of improving perioperative outcomes and reducing adverse events.
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use* ; Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy* ; Constriction, Pathologic/etiology* ; Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Humans ; Preoperative Care/methods* ; Surgical Wound Infection/etiology*

Gastrointestinal cancer and related treatments (surgery and chemoradiotherapy) are associated with declined functional status (FS) that has impact on quality of life, clinical outcome and continuum of care. Psychological distress drives an impressive burden of physiological and psychiatric conditions in oncologic care. Cancer patients often experience anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and fears of recurrence and death. Cancer prehabilitation is a process from cancer diagnosis to the beginning of treatment, which includes psychological, physical and nutritional assessments for a baseline functional level, identification of comorbidity, and targeted interventions that improve patient's health and functional capacity to reduce the incidence and the severity of current and future impairments with cancer, chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Multimodal prehabilitation program encompasses a series of planned, structured, repeatable and purposive interventions including comprehensive physical exercise, nutritional therapy, and relieving anxiety and depression, which integrates into best perioperative management ERAS pathway and aims at using the preoperative period to prevent or attenuate the surgery-related functional decline, to cope with surgical stress and to improve the consequences. However, a number of questions remain in regards to prehabilitation in gastrointestinal cancer surgery, which consists of the optimal makeup of training programs, the timing and approach of the intervention, how to improve compliance, how to measure functional capacity, and how to make cost-effective analysis. Therefore, more high-level evidence-based studies are expected to evaluate the value of implementation of prehabilitation into standard practice.
Chemoradiotherapy/adverse effects* ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures/psychology* ; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/therapy* ; Humans ; Preoperative Care ; Preoperative Exercise ; Quality of Life ; Recovery of Function

The anastomotic complications following radical gastrectomy mainly include anastomotic leakage, anastomotic hemorrhage, and anastomotic stricture. Theanastomotic complications are not rare and remain the most common complications resulting in the perioperativedeath of patients with gastric cancer. Standardized training could let surgeons fully realize that strict selection of operative indications, thorough preoperative assessment and preparation, and refined operation in surgery are the essential measures to prevent the anastomotic complications following radical gastrectomy. In addition, identifying these complications timely and taking effective measures promptly according to the clinical context are the keys to treating these complications, reducing the treatment cycle, and decreasing the mortality.
Anastomosis, Surgical ; adverse effects ; Anastomotic Leak ; prevention & control ; therapy ; Constriction, Pathologic ; prevention & control ; therapy ; Gastrectomy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage ; prevention & control ; therapy ; Humans ; Postoperative Complications ; diagnosis ; therapy ; Preoperative Care ; methods ; standards ; Risk Assessment ; methods ; standards ; Risk Factors ; Stomach Neoplasms ; complications ; mortality ; surgery

Intestinal obstruction is the most common complication after gastrointestinal surgery, and will endanger the patients if not managed properly. The key to the management of intestinal obstruction includes not only the selection of treatment, but also adequate judgment of the cause, location, extent and the probability of reoperation by detailed inquiry of the history, thorough physical examination, and imaging studies, which will guide the treatment. Non-operative therapy is the mainstay of treatment for incomplete obstruction, whilebowel decompression the gut by small intestinal decompression tube, preoperative procedures including restoration of systemic homeostasis should be performed. Efforts should be made to avoid emergency laparotomy without any preparations. Procedures to avoid intestinal obstruction include all the efforts to protect the gut and the intra-abdominal viscera during laparotomy, and to clear all the foreign body and tissues by thorough lavage of the abdominal cavity with saline before closing the abdomen.
Abdomen ; surgery ; Decompression ; Decompression, Surgical ; Diagnostic Imaging ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; Humans ; Intestinal Obstruction ; prevention & control ; therapy ; Intestine, Small ; surgery ; Laparotomy ; Postoperative Complications ; prevention & control ; Preoperative Care ; Reoperation

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the bowel-cleansing efficacy, patient affinity for the preparation solution, and mucosal injury between a split dose of poly-ethylene glycol (SD-PEG) and low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid (LV-PEG+Asc) in outpatient scheduled colonoscopies. METHODS: Of the 319 patients, 160 were enrolled for SD-PEG, and 159 for LV-PEG+Asc. The bowel-cleansing efficacy was rated according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. Patient affinity for the preparation solution was assessed using a questionnaire. All mucosal injuries observed during colonoscopy were biopsied and histopathologically reviewed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing between the groups. The LV-PEG+Asc group reported better patient acceptance and preference. There were no significant differences in the incidence or characteristics of the mucosal injuries between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SD-PEG, LV-PEG+Asc exhibited equivalent bowel-cleansing efficacy and resulted in improved patient acceptance and preference. There was no significant difference in mucosal injury between SD-PEG and LV-PEG+Asc. Thus, the LV-PEG+Asc preparation could be used more effectively and easily for routine colonoscopies without risking significant mucosal injury.
Adult ; Ascorbic Acid/administration & dosage/*adverse effects ; Cathartics/administration & dosage/*adverse effects ; Colonoscopy/methods ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Female ; Humans ; Intestinal Mucosa/drug effects/*injuries ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Compliance ; Patient Satisfaction ; Polyethylene Glycols/administration & dosage/*adverse effects ; Preoperative Care/*adverse effects/methods ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Vitamins/administration & dosage/adverse effects

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Controversy remains over the optimal approach to preoperative biliary drainage in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. We compared the clinical outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) with those of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients undergoing preoperative biliary drainage for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: A total of 106 consecutive patients who underwent biliary drainage before surgical treatment were divided into two groups: the PTBD group (n=62) and the EBD group (n=44). RESULTS: Successful drainage on the first attempt was achieved in 36 of 62 patients (58.1%) with PTBD, and in 25 of 44 patients (56.8%) with EBD. There were no significant differences in predrainage patient demographics and decompression periods between the two groups. Procedure-related complications, especially cholangitis and pancreatitis, were significantly more frequent in the EBD group than the PTBD group (PTBD vs EBD: 22.6% vs 54.5%, p<0.001). Two patients (3.8%) in the PTBD group experienced catheter tract implantation metastasis after curative resection during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: EBD was associated with a higher risk of procedure-related complications than PTBD. These complications were managed properly without severe morbidity; however, in the PTBD group, there were two cases of cancer dissemination along the catheter tract.
Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Bile Duct Neoplasms/*surgery ; Bile Ducts/surgery ; Cholangitis/etiology ; Drainage/adverse effects/*methods ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/adverse effects/*methods ; Female ; Humans ; Klatskin Tumor/*surgery ; Liver/surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pancreatitis/etiology ; Postoperative Complications/etiology ; Preoperative Care/adverse effects/*methods ; Treatment Outcome

INTRODUCTIONTo avoid the risk of pulmonary aspiration, fasting before anaesthesia is important. We postulated that the rate of noncompliance with fasting would be high in patients who were admitted on the day of surgery. Therefore, we surveyed patients in our institution to determine the rate of fasting compliance. We also examined patients' knowledge on preoperative fasting, as well as their perception of and attitudes toward preoperative fasting.

METHODSPatients scheduled for 'day surgery' or 'same day admission surgery' under general or regional anaesthesia were surveyed over a four-week period. The patients were asked to answer an eighteen-point questionnaire on demographics, preoperative fasting and attitudes toward fasting.

RESULTSA total of 130 patients were surveyed. 128 patients fasted before surgery, 111 patients knew that they needed to fast for at least six hours before surgery, and 121 patients believed that preoperative fasting was important, with 103 believing that preoperative fasting was necessary to avoid perioperative complications. However, patient understanding was poor, with only 44.6% of patients knowing the reason for fasting, and 10.8% of patients thinking that preoperative fasting did not include abstinence from beverages and sweets. When patients who did and did not know the reason for fasting were compared, we did not find any significant differences in age, gender or educational status.

CONCLUSIONDespite the patients' poor understanding of the reason for fasting, they were highly compliant with preoperative fasting. This is likely a result of their perception that fasting was important. However, poor understanding of the reason for fasting may lead to unintentional noncompliance.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anesthesia ; adverse effects ; Anesthesia, General ; adverse effects ; Anesthesiology ; standards ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Fasting ; Female ; Humans ; Infant ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Compliance ; Patient Education as Topic ; Pneumonia, Aspiration ; prevention & control ; Preoperative Care ; standards ; Singapore ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Tertiary Care Centers ; Young Adult

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) based on the occurrence of anastomosis leakage, surgical site infection (SSI), and severity of surgical complication when performing elective colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MBP and non-MBP patients were matched using propensity score. The outcomes were evaluated according to tumor location such as right- (n=84) and left-sided colon (n=50) and rectum (n=100). In the non-MBP group, patients with right-sided colon cancer did not receive any preparation, and patients with both left-sided colon and rectal cancers were given one rectal enema before surgery. RESULTS: In the right-sided colon surgery, there was no anastomosis leakage. SSI occurred in 2 (4.8%) and 4 patients (9.5%) in the non-MBP and MBP groups, respectively. In the left-sided colon cancer surgery, there was one anastomosis leakage (4.0%) in each group. SSI occurred in none in the rectal enema group and in 2 patients (8.0%) in the MBP group. In the rectal cancer surgery, there were 5 anastomosis leakages (10.0%) in the rectal enema group and 2 (4.0%) in the MBP group. SSI occurred in 3 patients (6.0%) in each groups. Severe surgical complications (Grade III, IV, or V) based on Dindo-Clavien classification, occurred in 7 patients (14.0%) in the rectal enema group and 1 patient (2.0%) in the MBP group (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Right- and left-sided colon cancer surgery can be performed safely without MBP. In rectal cancer surgery, rectal enema only before surgery seems to be dangerous because of the higher rate of severe postoperative complications.
Aged ; Anastomosis, Surgical ; Colorectal Surgery/adverse effects/*methods ; Elective Surgical Procedures/*adverse effects/methods ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Preoperative Care/*adverse effects/methods ; *Propensity Score ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVETo explore the feasibility and safety of enteral nutrition in preoperative bowel preparation for rectal cancer patients undergoing radical operation.

METHODSSixty rectal cancer patients undergoing selective low anterior resection were randomized into the trial group(n=30) and the control group(n=30). Patients in the trial group received clean liquid integral protein diet for 3 days before operation without mechanical bowel preparation. Patients in the control group received traditional diet and mechanical bowel preparation. The intraoperative and postoperative clinical data, the quality of bowel preparation, postoperative complications, and nutritional parameters were compared between the two groups.

RESULTSThere were no significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups before operation. The operative time, blood loss, quality of bowel preparation as well as postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different(all P>0.05). While the time to first flatus [(2.53±0.91) d vs. (3.03±0.68) d] and semi-liquid diet intake[(3.95±0.83) d vs. (4.52±1.14) d] were significantly shorter in the trial group as compared with the control group(all P<0.05). There were no death and no significant difference in postoperative complications [16.7%(5/30) vs. 20.0%(6/30), P>0.05]. The levels of postoperative total protein, albumin, and prealbumin decreased significantly. Meanwhile, the levels of postoperative albumin[(36.2±2.5) g/L vs. (33.5±2.6) g/L, P<0.01] and prealbumin [(325.4±28.2) mg/L vs. (302.5±34.2) mg/L, P<0.01] in the trial group were significantly higher than those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONSPreoperative enteral nutrition can replace the mechanical bowel preparation with better efficacy, and improve the postoperative nutritional status without increasing surgical risk in rectal cancer patients undergoing radical operation.

Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; Enteral Nutrition ; Humans ; Postoperative Complications ; Preoperative Care ; methods ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery