腹腔镜胃手术限制性输液疗法与自由输液疗法对术后并发症的影响:随机对照试验。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Yusuke Kusaka, Takeshi Ueno, Toshiaki Minami
{"title":"腹腔镜胃手术限制性输液疗法与自由输液疗法对术后并发症的影响:随机对照试验。","authors":"Yusuke Kusaka, Takeshi Ueno, Toshiaki Minami","doi":"10.1007/s00540-024-03439-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Currently, laparoscopic surgery is a standard technique in the field of abdominal surgery. However, the most adequate fluid regimen during laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. The aim of this trial is to compare a restricted fluid therapy with a liberal fluid therapy for laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Our hypothesis was that restrictive fluid therapy would reduce postoperative complications better than liberal fluid therapy.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for laparoscopic gastric surgery were randomized to either the liberal group (receiving 7-10 ml/kg/h of crystalloid) or the restrictive group (receiving 1-2 ml/kg/h of crystalloid) for each stratum of surgical procedure from April 2017 to March 2019. For both groups, blood loss was replaced by an equal volume of hydroxyethyl starch. The primary endpoint was postoperative complications up to 30 days after surgery, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 148 patients, and 140 of these were randomized to either the liberal or the restrictive group after exclusion. As a result, 69 cases were included in the liberal group for analysis, and 67 patients composed the restrictive group. Median fluid administration for the liberal and restrictive groups was 2950 ml and 800 ml, respectively. As well, overall complications in the liberal and restrictive groups were 27.5% and 19.4%, respectively (risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.31, p value = 0.264).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Restricted fluid therapy and liberal fluid therapy did not show any statistical differences in postoperative complications after laparoscopic gastric surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":14997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for laparoscopic gastric surgery on postoperative complications: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yusuke Kusaka, Takeshi Ueno, Toshiaki Minami\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00540-024-03439-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Currently, laparoscopic surgery is a standard technique in the field of abdominal surgery. However, the most adequate fluid regimen during laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. The aim of this trial is to compare a restricted fluid therapy with a liberal fluid therapy for laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Our hypothesis was that restrictive fluid therapy would reduce postoperative complications better than liberal fluid therapy.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for laparoscopic gastric surgery were randomized to either the liberal group (receiving 7-10 ml/kg/h of crystalloid) or the restrictive group (receiving 1-2 ml/kg/h of crystalloid) for each stratum of surgical procedure from April 2017 to March 2019. For both groups, blood loss was replaced by an equal volume of hydroxyethyl starch. The primary endpoint was postoperative complications up to 30 days after surgery, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 148 patients, and 140 of these were randomized to either the liberal or the restrictive group after exclusion. As a result, 69 cases were included in the liberal group for analysis, and 67 patients composed the restrictive group. Median fluid administration for the liberal and restrictive groups was 2950 ml and 800 ml, respectively. As well, overall complications in the liberal and restrictive groups were 27.5% and 19.4%, respectively (risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.31, p value = 0.264).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Restricted fluid therapy and liberal fluid therapy did not show any statistical differences in postoperative complications after laparoscopic gastric surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anesthesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-024-03439-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-024-03439-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前腹腔镜手术是腹部外科领域的一项标准技术。然而,腹腔镜手术中最适当的液体方案仍不清楚。本试验的目的是比较限制液体疗法和自由液体疗法在腹腔镜腹部手术中的应用。我们的假设是限制性液体治疗比自由液体治疗更能减少术后并发症。方法:在本随机对照试验中,2017年4月至2019年3月,计划进行腹腔镜胃手术的患者在每个手术阶段随机分为自由组(接受7-10 ml/kg/h晶体剂)和限制组(接受1-2 ml/kg/h晶体剂)。两组的失血量均用等量的羟乙基淀粉代替。根据Clavien-Dindo分类,主要终点是术后30天的并发症。结果:我们纳入了148例患者,其中140例在排除后随机分为自由组和限制组。结果,自由组69例进行分析,限制组67例。自由组和限制组的中位给液量分别为2950 ml和800 ml。自由组和限制组总并发症发生率分别为27.5%和19.4%(风险比0.71,95%可信区间0.38 ~ 1.31,p值= 0.264)。结论:限制液体疗法与自由液体疗法对腹腔镜胃手术术后并发症的影响无统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for laparoscopic gastric surgery on postoperative complications: a randomized controlled trial.

Purpose: Currently, laparoscopic surgery is a standard technique in the field of abdominal surgery. However, the most adequate fluid regimen during laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. The aim of this trial is to compare a restricted fluid therapy with a liberal fluid therapy for laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Our hypothesis was that restrictive fluid therapy would reduce postoperative complications better than liberal fluid therapy.

Method: In this randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for laparoscopic gastric surgery were randomized to either the liberal group (receiving 7-10 ml/kg/h of crystalloid) or the restrictive group (receiving 1-2 ml/kg/h of crystalloid) for each stratum of surgical procedure from April 2017 to March 2019. For both groups, blood loss was replaced by an equal volume of hydroxyethyl starch. The primary endpoint was postoperative complications up to 30 days after surgery, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results: We enrolled 148 patients, and 140 of these were randomized to either the liberal or the restrictive group after exclusion. As a result, 69 cases were included in the liberal group for analysis, and 67 patients composed the restrictive group. Median fluid administration for the liberal and restrictive groups was 2950 ml and 800 ml, respectively. As well, overall complications in the liberal and restrictive groups were 27.5% and 19.4%, respectively (risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.31, p value = 0.264).

Conclusion: Restricted fluid therapy and liberal fluid therapy did not show any statistical differences in postoperative complications after laparoscopic gastric surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Anesthesia
Journal of Anesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anesthesia is the official journal of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists. This journal publishes original articles, review articles, special articles, clinical reports, short communications, letters to the editor, and book and multimedia reviews. The editors welcome the submission of manuscripts devoted to anesthesia and related topics from any country of the world. Membership in the Society is not a prerequisite. The Journal of Anesthesia (JA) welcomes case reports that show unique cases in perioperative medicine, intensive care, emergency medicine, and pain management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信