Intestinal fatty acid-binding protein is a useful diagnostic marker for mesenteric infarction in humans. Kanda T,Fujii H,Tani T,Murakami H,Suda T,Sakai Y,Ono T,Hatakeyama K Gastroenterology BACKGROUND & AIMS:Acute ischemic diseases of the small bowel are lethal emergencies with no reliable diagnostic biochemical tests available. Experimental studies have suggested rat intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) as a serum marker reflecting bowel ischemia; the present study evaluates the human homologue (human I-FABP) as a serum marker for the diagnosis of acute ischemic diseases of the bowel. METHODS:Enzyme immunoassay was applied to determine I-FABP levels in the sera of 96 subjects: 13 preoperative patients with ischemic bowel diseases (5 cases of mesenteric infarction and 8 cases of strangulated obstruction of the small bowel), 35 healthy subjects, and 48 hospitalized patients with acute abdominal pain. RESULTS:Serum I-FABP levels were < 65 ng/mL in healthy subjects. In patients with acute abdominal pain, levels ranged from < 20 to 87 ng/mL (mean, 27.4 ng/mL), not significantly different from findings in healthy subjects. However, patients with ischemic bowel disease showed significantly higher I-FABP levels, ranging from < 20 to 1496 ng/mL (mean, 265.8 ng/mL). All 5 patients with mesenteric infarction showed I-FABP levels of > 100 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS:I-FABP is a useful biochemical marker for the accurate diagnosis of mesenteric infarction. 10.1053/gast.1996.v110.pm8566578

Electroacupuncture reduces duration of postoperative ileus after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ng Simon S M,Leung Wing Wa,Mak Tony W C,Hon Sophie S F,Li Jimmy C M,Wong Cherry Y N,Tsoi Kelvin K F,Lee Janet F Y Gastroenterology BACKGROUND & AIMS:We investigated the efficacy of electroacupuncture in reducing the duration of postoperative ileus and hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS:We performed a prospective study of 165 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for colonic and upper rectal cancer, enrolled from October 2008 to October 2010. Patients were assigned randomly to groups that received electroacupuncture (n = 55) or sham acupuncture (n = 55), once daily from postoperative days 1-4, or no acupuncture (n = 55). The acupoints Zusanli, Sanyinjiao, Hegu, and Zhigou were used. The primary outcome was time to defecation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic requirement, time to ambulation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS:Patients who received electroacupuncture had a shorter time to defecation than patients who received no acupuncture (85.9 ± 36.1 vs 122.1 ± 53.5 h; P < .001) and length of hospital stay (6.5 ± 2.2 vs 8.5 ± 4.8 days; P = .007). Patients who received electroacupuncture also had a shorter time to defecation than patients who received sham acupuncture (85.9 ± 36.1 vs 107.5 ± 46.2 h; P = .007). Electroacupuncture was more effective than no or sham acupuncture in reducing postoperative analgesic requirement and time to ambulation. In multiple linear regression analysis, an absence of complications and electroacupuncture were associated with a shorter duration of postoperative ileus and hospital stay after the surgery. CONCLUSIONS:In a clinical trial, electroacupuncture reduced the duration of postoperative ileus, time to ambulation, and postoperative analgesic requirement, compared with no or sham acupuncture, after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00464425. 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.10.050

Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial. van Hooft Jeanin E,Bemelman Willem A,Oldenburg Bas,Marinelli Andreas W,Lutke Holzik Martijn F,Grubben Marina J,Sprangers Mirjam A,Dijkgraaf Marcel G,Fockens Paul, The Lancet. Oncology BACKGROUND:Colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery is an alternative for emergency surgery in patients with acute malignant colonic obstruction, but its benefits are uncertain. We aimed to establish whether colonic stenting has better health outcomes than does emergency surgery. METHODS:Patients with acute obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer were enrolled from 25 hospitals in the Netherlands and randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery or emergency surgery. The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks and was stratified by centre; treatment allocation was concealed by use of a web-based application. Investigators and patients were unmasked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was mean global health status during a 6-month follow-up, which was assessed with the QL2 subscale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN46462267. FINDINGS:Between March 9, 2007, and Aug 27, 2009, 98 patients were assigned to receive colonic stenting (n=47 patients) or emergency surgery (n=51). Two successive interim analyses showed increased 30-day morbidity in the colonic stenting group, with an absolute risk increase of 0.19 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.41) in analysis of the first 60 patients (14 of 28 patients receiving colonic stenting vs 10 of 32 receiving emergency surgery), and an absolute risk increase of 0.19 (-0.01 to 0.37) in analysis of the first 90 patients (23 of 47 patients vs 13 of 43). In accordance with the advice of the data safety monitoring committee, the study was suspended on Sept 18, 2009, and ended on March 12, 2010. At the final analysis of 98 patients, mean global health status during follow-up was 63.0 (SD 23.8) in the colonic stenting group and 61.4 (SD 21.9) in the emergency surgery group; after adjustment for baseline values, mean global health status did not differ between treatment groups (-4.7, 95% CI -14.8 to 5.5, p=0.36). No difference was recorded between treatment groups in 30-day mortality (absolute risk difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, p=0.89), overall mortality (-0.02, -0.17 to 0.14, p=0.84), morbidity (-0.08, -0.27 to 0.11, p=0.43), and stoma rates at latest follow-up (0.09, -0.10 to 0.27, p=0.35). However, the emergency surgery group had an increased stoma rate directly after initial intervention (0.23, 0.04 to 0.40, p=0.016) and a reduced frequency of stoma-related problems (between-group difference -12.0, -23.7 to -0.2, p=0.046). The most common serious adverse events were abscess (three in the colonic stenting group vs four in the emergency surgery group), perforations (six vs none), and anastomotic leakage (five vs one), and the most common adverse events were pneumonia (three vs one) and wound infection (one vs three). INTERPRETATION:Colonic stenting has no decisive clinical advantages to emergency surgery. It could be used as an alternative treatment in as yet undefined subsets of patients, although with caution because of concerns about tumour spread caused by perforations. FUNDING:None. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70035-3

Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstruction (LASSO): an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. Sallinen Ville,Di Saverio Salomone,Haukijärvi Eija,Juusela Risto,Wikström Heidi,Koivukangas Vesa,Catena Fausto,Enholm Berndt,Birindelli Arianna,Leppäniemi Ari,Mentula Panu The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology BACKGROUND:Although laparoscopic adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstruction is being done more frequently, it is not widely accepted due to the lack of supporting evidence of its superiority over an open approach and concerns regarding its benefits. We aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic adhesiolysis was a superior treatment for adhesive small bowel obstruction compared with an open approach in terms of length of postoperative hospital stay and morbidity. METHODS:In this international, multicentre, parallel, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) aged 18-95 years who had adhesive small bowel obstruction that had not resolved with conservative management to have either open or laparoscopic adhesiolysis. The study was done in five academic university hospitals and three community (central) hospitals in two countries (Finland [n=3 academic university hospitals; n=3 community hospitals] and Italy [n=2 academic university hospitals]). We included only patients with high likelihood of a single adhesive band in the trial; additionally, patients who had an anaesthesiological contraindication, were pregnant, living in institutionalised care, or who had a hospital stay of more than 1 week before the surgical consultation were excluded from the trial. The randomisation sequence was generated using block randomisation, with randomly varied block sizes and stratified according to centre. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay assessed at time of discharge in the modified intention-to-treat population. FINDINGS:Between July 18, 2013, and April 9, 2018, 566 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 104 patients were randomly assigned to the open surgery group (n=51) or to the laparoscopy group (n=53). Of these patients, 100 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses (49 in the open surgery group; 51 in the laparoscopy group). The postoperative length of hospital stay for open surgery group was on average 1·3 days longer than that in the laparoscopy group (geometric mean 5·5 days [range 2-19] vs 4·2 days [range 1 -20]; ratio of geometric means 1·31 [95% CI 1·06-1·61]; p=0·013). 21 (43%) patients in the open surgery group and 16 (31%) patients in the laparoscopy group had postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo any grade) within 30 days (odds ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·27-1·38]; p=0·23). One patient died in each group within 30 days. INTERPRETATION:Laparoscopic adhesiolysis provides quicker recovery in selected patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction than open adhesiolysis. FUNDING:Vatsatautien Tutkimussäätiö Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, Martti I Turunen Foundation, and governmental (Finland) competitive research funds (EVO/VTR/TYH). 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30016-0