Prospective trial to evaluate the prognostic value of different nutritional assessment scores in pancreatic surgery (NURIMAS Pancreas). BJS 2017; 104: 1053-1062.
Published: 30th March 2017
Authors: P. Probst, S. Haller, T. Bruckner, A. Ulrich, O. Strobel, T. Hackert et al.
Preoperative nutritional status has an impact on patients' clinical outcome. For pancreatic surgery, however, it is unclear which nutritional assessment scores adequately assess malnutrition associated with postoperative outcome.
Patients scheduled for elective pancreatic surgery at the University of Heidelberg were screened for eligibility. Twelve nutritional assessment scores were calculated before operation, and patients were categorized as either at risk or not at risk for malnutrition by each score. The postoperative course was monitored prospectively by assessors blinded to the nutritional status. The primary endpoint was major complications evaluated for each score in a multivariable analysis corrected for known risk factors in pancreatic surgery.
Overall, 279 patients were analysed. A major complication occurred in 61 patients (21·9 per cent). The proportion of malnourished patients differed greatly among the scores, from 1·1 per cent (Nutritional Risk Index) to 79·6 per cent (Nutritional Risk Classification). In the multivariable analysis, only raised amylase level in drainage fluid on postoperative day 1 (odds ratio (
None of the nutritional assessment scores defined malnutrition relevant to complications after pancreatic surgery and these scores may thus be abandoned.Read more
You may also be interested in
Survival following liver transplantation for liver‐only colorectal metastases compared with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Authors: S. Dueland, A. Foss, J. M. Solheim, M. Hagness, P.‐D. Line
Notes: Valid treatment option for colorectal liver metastases
Propensity score‐matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection.
Authors: M. Raoof, P. H. G. Ituarte, Y. Woo, S. G. Warner, G. Singh, Y. Fong et al.
Notes: No difference in survival
Authors: M. G. Keane, A. Shamali, L. N. Nilsson, A. Antila, J. Millastre Bocos, M. Marijinissen Van Zanten et al.
Notes: Low risk in small, asymptomatic mucinous cystic neoplasms
Authors: A. ten Hove, V. E. de Meijer, J. B. F. Hulscher, R. H. J. de Kleine
Notes: Choledochal cysts should be resected
Authors: M. Gelli, M. A. Allard, O. Farges, C. Paugam‐Burtz, J. Y. Mabrut, J. M. Regimbeau et al.
Notes: No increased risk
Meta‐analysis of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus‐preserving versus pylorus‐resecting pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 339-349.
Authors: U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr‐Harim, M. K. Diener et al.
Notes: No difference
Meta‐analysis of mortality in patients with high‐risk intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms under observation. BJS 2018; 105: 328-338.
Authors: G. Vanella, S. Crippa, L. Archibugi, P. G. Arcidiacono, G. Delle Fave, M. Falconi et al.
Notes: Low disease‐related mortality
Authors: P. Studer, T. Horn, A. Haynes, D. Candinas, V. M. Banz
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy versus observation in resected bile duct cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 192-202.
Authors: T. Ebata, S. Hirano, M. Konishi, K. Uesaka, Y. Tsuchiya, M. Ohtsuka et al.
Notes: No advantage
Authors: M. A. Stammes, S. L. Bugby, T. Porta, K. Pierzchalski, T. Devling, C. Otto et al.
Notes: Visible results
Defining the molecular pathology of pancreatic body and tail adenocarcinoma. BJS 2018; 105: e183-e191.
Authors: S. B. Dreyer, N. B. Jamieson, R. Upstill‐Goddard, P. J. Bailey, C. J. McKay, A. V. Biankin et al.
Notes: Worse genetic profile in tail
Circulating tumour cells and DNA as liquid biopsies in gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e110-e120.
Authors: O. Nordgård, K. Tjensvoll, B. Gilje, K. Søreide
Notes: The inner space frontier