Journals / Turkish Journal of Surgery / 2017 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of perioperative nutritional status with subjective global assessment method in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery

Pages
253–258
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Subjective Global Assessment is an easy and reliable test and if utilized will be helpful to detect patients requiring nutritional support

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study was designed to evaluate the perioperative nutritional status of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer using Subjective Global Assessment and surgeon behavior on nutritional support.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: We recruited 100 patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer in one university and two state teaching hospitals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Subjective Global Assessment is an easy and reliable test and if utilized will be helpful to detect patients requiring nutritional support
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: This study was designed to evaluate the perioperative nutritional status of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer using Subjective Global Assessment and surgeon behavior on nutritional support. Material and Methods: We recruited 100 patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer in one university and two state teaching hospitals. Subjective Global Assessment was administered to evaluate preoperative and postoperative nutritional status. Fifty-two patients in the state hospitals (Group 1) and 48 in the university hospital were assessed. Anthropometric and biochemical measurements were performed. Changes in preoperative Subjective Global Assessment scores and scores at the time of discharge and types of nutritional support were compared. Subjective Global Assessment-B was regarded as moderate and Subjective Global Assessment-C as heavy malnutrition. Results: Ten patients had Subjective Global Assessment-B and 29 had Subjective Global Assessment-C malnutrition in Group 1 and nine had Subjective Global Assessment-B and 31 had Subjective Global Assessment-C malnutrition in Group 2 during preoperative assessment. Respective numbers in postoperative assessment were 12 for Subjective Global Assessment-B and 30 for Subjective Global Assessment-C in Group 1 and 14 for Subjective Global Assessment-B and 26 for Subjective Global Assessment-C in Group 2. There was no difference between two groups. Nutritional methods according to Subjective Global Assessment evaluation in pre- and postoperative periods were not different between the groups.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the malnutrition rate is high among patients scheduled for gastrointestinal cancer surgery and the number of surgeons were inadequate to provide perioperative nutritional support. Both university and state hospitals had similar shortcomings. Subjective Global Assessment is an easy and reliable test and if utilized will be helpful to detect patients requiring nutritional support

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDİM, A., AKTAN, A. Ö. (2017). Evaluation of perioperative nutritional status with subjective global assessment method in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Turkish Journal of Surgery, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 4, 253–258. https://ajindex.com/articles/390506

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Gündoğdu H. Nutritional support in surgical patients. Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Derg; 2000; 3: 2-3
  2. Kılıçturgay S. Evaluation of nutritional deficiencies and indications of administration. T Klin J Surg 1998; 3: 81-94
  3. Bruun LI, Bosaeus I, Bergstad I, Nygaard K. Prevalence of malnutrition in surgical patients: evaluation of nutritional support and documentation. Clin Nutr 1999; 18: 141-147. [CrossRef] 4. Stanga Z, Allison S. Nutrition in elderly. In: Clinical nutrition: Basic concepts. L. Sobatka ed., (Translation ed. M. Bahar), Logos Publishing, İstanbul 2002; 226-245
  4. Koç M. Clinical nutrition. Nutritional Support Therapy 2000; 19- 28
  5. Başaran GA. Nutrition in cancer patients. Klinik Gelişim 2004; 17: 24-32
  6. Değerli Ü. Genel cerrahi. Emre A. Nutrition in surgery. 5th edition. Nobel Tıp Kitapevi. İstanbul,1995;103-10
  7. Tufan T, İnanç N, Oğuz S, Saka M, Dağ B, Şafak H. Enteral nutritional supplement therapy. Ed. Tufan T, İnanç N, Oğuz S, Saka M, Dağ B, Şafak H. Gülhane Askeri Tıp Akademisi: GATA, Ankara. 2003.p.34
  8. Hill GL, Blackett RL, Pickford I, Burkinshaw L, Young GA, Warren JV, et al. Malnutrition in surgical patients. An unrecognised problem. Lancet 1977; 1: 689-692. [CrossRef] 10. Clinical Nutrition basic concepts,ESPEN courses publishing editor Group: KEPAN board of directors, 2nd edition, 2002
  9. Allison SP. Malnutrition, disease and outcome. Nutrition 2000; 16: 590-593. [CrossRef] 12. Detsky AS, McLaughlin JR, Baker JP, Johnston N, Whittaker S, Mendelson RA, et al. What is Subjectif-Global assesment of nutritional status? J Parenteral Enteral Nutr; 1987: 11: 8-13. [CrossRef] 13. Kruizenga HM, Seidell JC, de Vet HC, Wierdsma NJ, van Bokhorstde van der Schueren MA. Development and validation of a hospital screening tool for malnutrition:the short nutritional assessment questionnaire (SNAQ). Clin Nutr2005; 24: 75-82. [CrossRef] 14. Zeybek N, Turgut T, Şen D. Evaluation of feeding in emergency patients Ed. Koçar H, Erikçi S, Baykal Y, Acil Iç Hastalıkları, GATA, Etlik Ankara, 2003, p:700-722
  10. Weimann A, Braga M, Harsanyi L, Laviano A, Ljungqvist O, Soeters P, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Surgery including organ transplantation. Clinical Nutrition 2006; 25: 224-244. [CrossRef] 16. Başkonuş İ, Borazan E, Maralcan G, Aybastı N, Gökalp A, Balık A.A, Perioperative total parenteral nutrition effects on postoperative morbidity and mortality, Gaziantep Tıp Dergisi 2011; 17: 141-146
  11. Kılıç KM, Kızılarslanoğlu CM,