Brian P Chen1, Marian Chen2, Sean Bennett1,3, Kristina Lemon1, Kimberly A Bertens1, Fady K Balaa1, Guillaume Martel4,5. 1. Liver and Pancreas Unit, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, CCW 1667, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Liver and Pancreas Unit, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, CCW 1667, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. gumartel@ottawahospital.on.ca. 5. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. gumartel@ottawahospital.on.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is significant interest and controversy surrounding the effect of restrictive fluid management on outcomes in major gastrointestinal surgery. This has been most studied in colorectal surgery, although the literature relating to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) patients is growing. The aim of this paper was to generate a comprehensive review of the available evidence for restrictive perioperative fluid management strategies and outcomes in PD. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2017. A review protocol was utilized and registered with PROSPERO. Primary citations that evaluated perioperative fluid management in PD, including those as part of a clinical pathway, were considered. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Secondary outcomes included delayed gastric emptying (DGE), complication rate, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and readmission. RESULTS: A total of six studies involving 846 patients were included (2009-2015), of which four were RCTs. Pooled analysis of RCTs and high-quality observational studies found no effect of restrictive intraoperative fluid management on POPF, DGE, complication rate, LOS, mortality, and readmission. Only one study assessed postoperative fluid management exclusively and found prolonged LOS in patients in the restricted fluid group. CONCLUSION: Based on results of RCTs and high-quality observational studies, intraoperative fluid restriction in PD has not been shown to significantly affect postoperative outcomes. There are too few studies assessing postoperative fluid management to draw conclusions at this time.
BACKGROUND: There is significant interest and controversy surrounding the effect of restrictive fluid management on outcomes in major gastrointestinal surgery. This has been most studied in colorectal surgery, although the literature relating to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) patients is growing. The aim of this paper was to generate a comprehensive review of the available evidence for restrictive perioperative fluid management strategies and outcomes in PD. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2017. A review protocol was utilized and registered with PROSPERO. Primary citations that evaluated perioperative fluid management in PD, including those as part of a clinical pathway, were considered. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Secondary outcomes included delayed gastric emptying (DGE), complication rate, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and readmission. RESULTS: A total of six studies involving 846 patients were included (2009-2015), of which four were RCTs. Pooled analysis of RCTs and high-quality observational studies found no effect of restrictive intraoperative fluid management on POPF, DGE, complication rate, LOS, mortality, and readmission. Only one study assessed postoperative fluid management exclusively and found prolonged LOS in patients in the restricted fluid group. CONCLUSION: Based on results of RCTs and high-quality observational studies, intraoperative fluid restriction in PD has not been shown to significantly affect postoperative outcomes. There are too few studies assessing postoperative fluid management to draw conclusions at this time.
Authors: Trientje B Santema; Annelies Visser; Olivier R C Busch; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; J Carel Goslings; D J Gouma; Dirk T Ubbink Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Wenchuan Wu; Jin He; John L Cameron; Martin Makary; Kevin Soares; Nita Ahuja; Neda Rezaee; Joseph Herman; Lei Zheng; Daniel Laheru; Michael A Choti; Ralph H Hruban; Timothy M Pawlik; Christopher L Wolfgang; Matthew J Weiss Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Birte Kulemann; Sylvia Timme; Gabriel Seifert; Philipp A Holzner; Torben Glatz; Olivia Sick; Sophia Chikhladze; Peter Bronsert; Jens Hoeppner; Martin Werner; Ulrich T Hopt; Goran Marjanovic Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Barbara Kabon; Ozan Akça; Akiko Taguchi; Angelika Nagele; Ratnaraj Jebadurai; Cem F Arkilic; Neeru Sharma; Arundhathi Ahluwalia; Susan Galandiuk; James Fleshman; Daniel I Sessler; Andrea Kurz Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.627
Authors: Monty G Mythen; Michael Swart; Nigel Acheson; Robin Crawford; Kerri Jones; Martin Kuper; John S McGrath; Alan Horgan Journal: Perioper Med (Lond) Date: 2012-06-27