Dataset Information

Sarcopenia and major complications in patients undergoing oncologic colon surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sarcopenia is a surrogate marker for malnutrition and frailty, which has been linked to higher complication rates and prolonged length of stay (LOS) after surgery. The study aim was to assess the correlation between computed tomography (CT)-based sarcopenia and short-term clinical outcomes after oncologic colon surgery.

Methods

This retrospective study included consecutive patients operated between May 2014 and December 2019. Three radiological indices of sarcopenia were measured at the level of the third lumbar vertebra on preoperative CT scans: skeletal muscle area (SMA), skeletal muscle index (SMI) (both markers of muscle quantity), and skeletal muscle radiation attenuation (SMRA) (marker of muscle quality). Patients with major complications (grade ≥ 3b according to the Clavien classification) were compared with those without. Statistical correlation between sarcopenia indices, LOS, and comprehensive complication index (CCI) was tested with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

A total of 325 patients were included. Mean age was 67 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.3], mean body mass index was 26.0 kg/m² (SD 5.3), and 193 (59%) were male. Fifty patients (15.4%) had major complications, while 275 (84.6%) did not. Patients with major complications had more open surgery (52 vs. 21%, P < 0.01), intraoperative blood loss (257 vs. 102 mL, P = 0.035), and intraoperative complications (22 vs. 9%, P = 0.012). Patients with major complications had significantly increased CCI scores (53 vs. 6, P < 0.01), reoperations (74 vs. 0%, P < 0.01), and LOS (33 vs. 7, P < 0.01). SMA and SMI were comparable between both groups (126.0 vs. 125.2 cm² , P = 0.974, and 43.4 vs. 44.3 cm² /m² , P = 0.636, respectively), while SMRA was significantly lower in patients with major complications (33.6 vs. 37.3 HU, P = 0.018). A lower SMRA was correlated with prolonged LOS (r = -0.207, P < 0.01) and higher CCI (r = -0.144, P < 0.01), while the other sarcopenia indices had no influence on surgical outcomes.

Conclusions

Muscle quality (SMRA) as a specific sarcopenia marker was lower in patients with major complications and seems to prevail over muscle quantity (SMA and SMI) in the prediction of adverse outcomes after oncologic colon surgery.

SUBMITTER: Schneider M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8718051 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) have an impact on the recovery of adults after surgery. It is therefore important to establish whether preoperative respiratory rehabilitation can decrease the risk of PPCs and to identify adults who might benefit from respiratory rehabilitation.ObjectivesOur primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of preoperative inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on PPCs in adults undergoing cardiac or major abdominal surgery. We looked at all-cause mortality and adverse events.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to October 2014), LILACS (1982 to October 2014), and ISI Web of Science (1985 to October 2014). We did not impose any language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials that compared preoperative IMT and usual preoperative care for adults undergoing cardiac or major abdominal surgery.Data collection and analysisTwo or more review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We extracted the following information: study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, and outcome measures. We contacted study authors for additional information in order to identify any unpublished data.Main resultsWe included 12 trials with 695 participants; five trials included participants awaiting elective cardiac surgery and seven trials included participants awaiting elective major abdominal surgery. All trials contained at least one domain judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias. Of greatest concern was the risk of bias associated with inadequate blinding, as it was impossible to blind participants due to the nature of the study designs. We could pool postoperative atelectasis in seven trials (443 participants) and postoperative pneumonia in 11 trials (675 participants) in a meta-analysis. Preoperative IMT was associated with a reduction of postoperative atelectasis and pneumonia, compared with usual care or non-exercise intervention (respectively; risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.82 and RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.77). We could pool all-cause mortality within postoperative period in seven trials (431 participants) in a meta-analysis. However, the effect of IMT on all-cause postoperative mortality is uncertain (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.23). Eight trials reported the incidence of adverse events caused by IMT. All of these trials reported that there were no adverse events in both groups. We could pool the mean duration of hospital stay in six trials (424 participants) in a meta-analysis. Preoperative IMT was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.53 to -0.13). According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group guidelines for evaluating the impact of healthcare interventions, the overall quality of studies for the incidence of pneumonia was moderate, whereas the overall quality of studies for the incidence of atelectasis, all-cause postoperative death, adverse events, and duration of hospital stay was low or very low.Authors' conclusionsWe found evidence that preoperative IMT was associated with a reduction of postoperative atelectasis, pneumonia, and duration of hospital stay in adults undergoing cardiac and major abdominal surgery. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to lack of adequate blinding, small-study effects, and publication bias needs to be considered when interpreting the present findings.