Gastroenterology Report
Latest Publications


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

574
(FIVE YEARS 237)

H-INDEX

25
(FIVE YEARS 7)

Published By Oxford University Press

2052-0034

Author(s):  
Yun Li ◽  
Zhi-Wei Jiang ◽  
Xin-Xin Liu ◽  
Hua-Feng Pan ◽  
Guan-Wen Gong ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Urinary catheterization (UC) is a conventional perioperative measure for major abdominal operation. Optimization of perioperative catheter management is an essential component of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. We aimed to investigate the risk factors of urinary retention (UR) after open colonic resection within the ERAS protocol and to assess the feasibility of avoiding urinary drainage during the perioperative period. Methods A total of 110 colonic-cancer patients undergoing open elective colonic resection between July 2014 and May 2018 were enrolled in this study. All patients were treated within our ERAS protocol during the perioperative period. Data on patients’ demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were collected and analysed retrospectively. Results Sixty-eight patients (61.8%) underwent surgery without any perioperative UC. Thirty patients (27.3%) received indwelling UC during the surgical procedure. Twelve (10.9%) cases developed UR after surgery necessitating UC. Although patients with intraoperative UC had a lower incidence of post-operative UR [0% (0/30) vs 15% (12/80), P = 0.034], intraoperative UC was not testified as an independent protective factor in multivariate logistic analysis. The history of prostatic diseases and the body mass index were strongly associated with post-operative UR. Six patients were diagnosed with post-operative urinary-tract infection, among whom two had intraoperative UC and four were complicated with post-operative UR requiring UC. Conclusion Avoidance of urinary drainage for open elective colonic resection is feasible with the implementation of the ERAS programme as the required precondition. Obesity and a history of prostatic diseases are significant predictors of post-operative UR.


Author(s):  
Alexander Goldowsky ◽  
Rohan Sen ◽  
Gila Hoffman ◽  
Joseph D Feuerstein

Abstract Background Guidelines are published by international gastroenterology societies regarding the management of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) to help clinicians to provide high-quality patient care. We examined the guidelines for the quality and strength of evidence used to develop the recommendations, methods for grading evidence, differences in disease-specific recommendations, conflicts of interest, and plans for guideline updates. Methods A systematic search was performed on PubMed using “ulcerative colitis,” “Crohn’s disease,” and “guidelines” in April 2019. International gastroenterology society websites were searched for UC- and CD-specific guidelines. Guidelines from 12 societies were examined by two authors. Chi-squared tests were used for comparing evidence-level grades, strength of recommendations, and reported conflicts of interest. Linear-regression modeling was used to evaluate the relationship between the number of authors and the number of recommendations in a given guideline. Results Of 28 guidelines reviewed, 25 (89%) used a total of three different systems to grade the level of evidence and 2 (7%) used an unknown system. Three (11%) reviewed guidelines did not provide a conflict-of-interest statement, while three (11%) provided a timeline for guideline updates. Of 1,265 total statements examined, 246 (19%) reported no grade of evidence quality or explicitly stated that the recommendation was based on “expert opinion.” One hundred and thirty-five (22%) UC recommendations were noted to be “weak/conditional” and 95 (16%) did not have a recommendation strength. Two hundred and forty-two (37%) CD recommendations were noted to be “weak/conditional” and 151 (23%) did not have a recommendation strength. Conclusion The majority of UC and CD guidelines are based on a low/very low quality of evidence and are further weakened due to the lack of homogeneity in specific aspects of management recommendations as well as conflicts of interest.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document