Purpose: This study examined the effect of permissive underfeeding compared to target feeding and intensive insulin therapy (IIT) compared to conventional insulin therapy (CIT) on the inflammatory mediators monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (sICAM-1), and tissue factor (TF) in critically ill patients. Methodology: This was a substudy of a 2 × 2 factorial design randomized controlled trial in which intensive care unit (ICU) patients were randomized into permissive underfeeding compared to target feeding groups and into IIT compared to CIT groups (ISRCTN96294863). In this substudy, we included 91 patients with almost equal numbers across randomization groups. Blood samples were collected at baseline and at days 3, 5, and 7 of an ICU stay. Linear mixed models were used to assess the differences in MCP-1, sICAM-1, and TF across randomization groups over time. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced across randomization groups. Daily caloric intake was significantly higher in the target feeding than in the permissive underfeeding groups (P-value < 0.01), and the daily insulin dose was significantly higher in the IIT than in the CIT groups (P-value < 0.01). MCP-1, sICAM-1, and TF did not show any significant difference between the randomization groups, while there was a time effect for MCP-1. Baseline sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and platelets had a significant effect on sICAM-1 (P-value < 0.01). For TF, there was a significant association with age (P-value < 0.01). Conclusions: Although it has been previously demonstrated that insulin inhibits MCP-1, sICAM-1 in critically ill patients, and TF in non-critically ill patients, our study demonstrated that IIT in critically ill patients did not affect these inflammatory mediators. Similarly, caloric intake had a negligible effect on the inflammatory mediators studied.
The spleen is one of the most frequently injured intraperitoneal organs, and management of splenic injuries may require splenectomy. Traditionally, surgical removal of the spleen was done by an open approach using either an upper midline or left subcostal incision. Open splenectomy is performed in two major clinical scenarios: trauma and hematologic disease. With the advent of minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic splenectomy has become a standard procedure for elective removal of the spleen for most indications. Nowadays laparoscopic splenectomy is the approach of choice for both benign and malignant diseases of the spleen. However, some contraindications still apply. The evolution of the technology has allowed though, cases which were considered to be absolute contraindications for performing a minimal invasive procedure to be treated with modified laparoscopic approaches. Moreover, the introduction of advanced laparoscopic tools for ligation resulted in less intraoperative complications. Today, laparoscopic splenectomy is considered safe, with better outcomes in comparison to open splenectomy, and the increased experience of surgeons allows operative times comparable to those of an open splenectomy. In this review we discussed the indications and the contraindications of laparoscopic splenectomy. Furthermore, we analyze the surgical techniques.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.