Search

Figure S1a: Effects of EPA treatment on OE19 (A) and OE33 (B) cell line growth at four time points. Figure S1b: Effects of DHA treatment on OE19 (A) and OE33 (B) cell growth at four time points. Figure S1c: Effects of Oxaliplatin treatment on OE19 (A) and OE33 (B) cell lines growth at four time points. Figure S1d: Effects of OmegavenÂŽ treatment on OE19 (A) and OE33 (B) cell lines growth at four time points. (DOCX 285 kb)

Melanie Paul, Melanie Baker, Robert N Williams, David J Bowrey Department of Surgery, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK Background and aims: Provision of adequate nutrition after esophagectomy remains a major challenge. The aims of this review were to describe the challenges facing this patient population and to determine the evidence base underpinning current nutritional and dietetic interventions after esophagectomy. Methods: Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched for English language publications of the period 1990–2016 reporting on the outcome of nutritional or dietetic interventions after esophagectomy or patient-related symptoms. Results: Four studies demonstrated that early reintroduction of oral fluids was safe and was associated with a shorter hospital stay and ileus duration. One of three studies comparing in-hospital enteral nutrition against usual care showed that enteral feeding was well tolerated and was associated with a shorter hospital stay. Eight studies comparing enteral with parenteral nutrition showed similar surgical complication rates. Enteral feeding was associated with a shorter duration of ileus and lower health care costs. In hospital, all types of enteral access (nasoenteral, jejunostomy) were equivalent in their safety profiles. Cohort studies indicate that technical (tube dysfunction) and feed (diarrhea, distention) problems were common with jejunostomies but are easily managed. The mortality risk associated with jejunostomy in hospital is 0.2% (reported range 0%–1%), principally due to small bowel ischemia. There have been no reports of serious jejunostomy complications in patients receiving home feeding. One study demonstrated the advantages of home feeding in weight, muscle and fat preservation. Studies reporting 12 months or more after esophagectomy indicate a high frequency of persistent symptoms, dumping syndrome 15%–75% (median 46%), dysphagia 11%–38% (median 27%), early satiety 40%–90% (median 65%) and reflux 19%–61% (median 29%). Conclusion: Patients should resume oral intake as soon as possible after surgery. In hospital, all forms of enteral access appear to be safe. Out of hospital, the ability to provide home feeding by feeding jejunostomy is likely where meaningful nutritional improvements can be made. Improving nutrition and related quality of life in the early months might improve the long-term outcome. Keywords: esophagectomy, enteral nutrition, nutrition, nutritional status, weight

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are frequently criticised because surgeon expertise and standards of surgery are not considered or accounted for during study design. This is particularly true in pragmatic trials (which typically involve multiple centres and surgeons and are based in ‘real world’ settings), compared with explanatory trials (which are smaller and more tightly controlled).ObjectiveThis protocol describes a process to develop and test quality assurance (QA) measures for use within a predominantly pragmatic surgical RCT comparing minimally invasive and open techniques for oesophageal cancer (the NIHR ROMIO study). It builds on methods initiated in the ROMIO pilot RCT.Methods and analysisWe have identified three distinct types of QA measure: (i) entry criteria for surgeons, through assessment of operative videos, (ii) standardisation of operative techniques (by establishing minimum key procedural phases) and (iii) monitoring of surgeons during the trial, using intraoperative photography to document key procedural phases and standardising the pathological assessment of specimens. The QA measures will be adapted from the pilot study and tested iteratively, and the video and photo assessment tools will be tested for reliability and validity.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained (NRES Committee South West—Frenchay, 25 April 2016, ref: 16/SW/0098). Results of the QA development study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberISRCTN59036820,ISRCTN10386621.

A-20-year old male, with no significant medical history, presented with clinical features mimicking a perforated acute appendicitis. Because of features of peritonitis, a laparotomy was performed which showed a segment of small bowel with multiple large diverticula and mesenteric cysts. A segmental small bowel resection was performed. The patient made an uneventful recovery from surgery. Histology revealed features of a small bowel hamartoma.

Background. Liposarcoma is the second most common soft tissue sarcoma affecting predominantly the retroperitoneal space and extremities. Mesenteric liposarcoma is uncommon and occurs in the small bowel mesentery. In this paper we report the case of a recurrent mesocolon myxoid liposarcoma manifesting 6 years from the initial right hemicolectomy for the primary tumour. Case Report. A 41-year-old female presented with a 4-day history of signs and symptoms indicative of small bowel obstruction, subsequently confirmed on plain abdominal X-ray. In 2006 she underwent a right hemicolectomy for a myxoid liposarcoma of the mesentery. The patient was initially managed conservatively; however she showed no signs of improvement and was taken to theatre for an exploratory laparotomy and division of adhesional bands. During this procedure an incidental finding of a dark purple, smooth pelvic mass was identified with similar macroscopic appearance to that of splenic tissue. Histological examination revealed a recurrent mesocolon myxoid liposarcoma. Conclusion. Mesocolon myxoid liposarcoma is a rare soft tissue neoplastic pathology and carries a high risk of recurrence. Therefore, a symptomatic patient with a previous history of primary liposarcoma excision should be treated with a high index of suspicion and a longer period of followup should be considered.