4.7 Article

Prospective evaluation of nutritional status related to body mass indices and outcomes after modified D2 gastrectomy for carcinoma

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 477-483

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2003.07.009

Keywords

gastric cancer; surgery; body mass index

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the perioperative nutritional status, body mass indices (BMI) and nutritional intakes of patients undergoing a modified D2 gastrectomy (preserving pancreas and spleen) for carcinoma to determine whether a relationship exists between the above and outcomes. Methods: Fifty consecutive patients [median age 71 years, 38 male] with gastric adenocarcinoma were studied prospectively. Results: Seven patients (14%) were obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)), 16 patients (32%) were overweight (BMI > 25 kg/m2), 21 patients (42%) were of normal weight (BMI 20-25 kg/m2), and six patients (12%) were underweight (BMI<20kg/m(2)). Operative morbidity was commoner in underweight patients (33%) when compared with overweight patients (17%, P = 0.391) and patients of normal weight (14%, P = 0.289). Fatal complications, however (two patients, 4%) were confined to overweight patients (P = 0.118). Preoperative serum albumin levels were significantly higher in overweight patients (43 g/dl) compared to underweight patients (34.5 g/dl; P = 0.003), though no correlation was found between patients' serum albumin levels and postoperative morbidity (r = -0.023, P = 0.877). Overweight patients were significantly less likely to achieve their protein requirements postoperatively than underweight patients (P = 0.037). Early enteral feeding contributed to 56% of the median energy requirements and 45% of the median protein requirements on the seventh postoperative day. Conclusion: BMI alone is a poor indicator of outcomes after modified D2 gastrectomy for carcinoma. The role of early enteral nutrition in patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer deserves further evaluation. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available