World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 37, Issue 7, pp 1714–1717 | Cite as

Early Structured Surgical Management Plan for Neonates with Short Bowel Syndrome May Improve Outcomes

  • S. J. Wood
  • B. Khalil
  • F. Fusaro
  • S. E. Folaranmi
  • S. A. Sparks
  • A. Morabito
Article

Abstract

Background

In children with short bowel syndrome, maximal adaptation of the bowel after extensive resection is thought to occur during the first 2 years of life. The aim of the present study was to review children with short bowel syndrome from two intestinal rehabilitation centers, comparing those undergoing lengthening procedures <365 days of age (early) versus those whose lengthening procedure was carried out >365 days of age (late).

Methods

Retrospective data collection was performed from January 2004 to December 2010 in Manchester, UK, and from December 2006 to December 2010 in Brussels, Belgium. Both medical centers follow a similar intestinal rehabilitation program (IRP). Data collected included population demographics, bowel length preoperatively and postoperatively, age at operation, parenteral nutrition (PN), central access, and complications.

Results

Complete data were available for eight children who underwent lengthening surgery at <365 days of age, and six who underwent the procedure at >365 days of age. Diagnoses were similar. Groups were matched for gestation and birthweight, with no statistical difference in preoperative and postoperative bowel lengths. The mean duration of PN postoperatively was 378 days in the early cohort and 589 days in the late cohort. This trended toward statistical significance (p = 0.071). Full enteral autonomy was achieved at 17 months (early) and 59 months (late) (p = 0.01). Patients in the early group required fewer central lines than those operated on later (p = 0.035).

Conclusions

Enrolling children into an IRP involving early (<365 days of age) lengthening surgery allows a shorter postoperative time to allow weaning to full enteral nutrition, as well as fewer central lines. Both outcomes provide benefits for the child and family, allowing an earlier return to normal life.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Khalil BA, Ba’ath ME, Aziz A et al (2012) Intestinal rehabilitation and bowel reconstructive surgery: improved outcomes in children with short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 54:505–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williamson RC (1978) Intestinal adaptation (first of two parts): structural, functional and cytokinetic changes. N Engl J Med 29:1393–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bianchi A (2007) Autologous gastrointestinal reconstruction for short bowel syndrome. Br J Hosp Med 68:24–27Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casey L, Lee KH, Rosychuk R et al (2008) 10-year review of pediatric intestinal failure: clinical factors associated with outcome. Nutr Clin Pract 23:436–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Javid PJ, Malone FR, Reyes J et al (2010) The experience of a regional pediatric intestinal failure program: successful outcomes from intestinal rehabilitation. J Am Surg 199:676–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murphy F, Khalil BA, Gozzini S et al (2011) Controlled tissue expansion in the initial management of the short bowel state. World J Surg 35:1142–1145. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-0991-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson JS, Rochling FA, Weseman RA et al (2012) Current management of short bowel syndrome. Current Prob Surg 49:52–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Modi BP, Javid PJ, Jaksic T et al (2006) First report of the international serial transverse enteroplasty data registry: indications, efficacy and complications. J Am Coll Surg 204:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wales PW, de Silca N, Langer JC et al (2007) Intermediate outcomes after serial transverse enteroplasty in children with short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Surg 42:1804–1810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sala D, Chomto S, Hill S (2010) Long-term outcomes of short bowel syndrome requiring long-term/home intravenous nutrition compared in children with gastroschisis and those with volvulus. Transplant Proc 42:5–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quiros-Tejeira RE, Ament ME, Reyen L et al (2004) Long-term parenteral nutritional support and intestinal adaptation in children with short bowel syndrome: a 25 year experience. J Pediatr 145:157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diamond IR, Struijs MC, De Silva NT et al (2010) Does the colon play a role in intestinal adaptation in infants with short bowel syndrome? A multiple variable analysis. J Pediatr Surg 45:975–979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goulet O, Baglin-Gobet S, Talbotec C et al (2005) Outcome and long-term growth after extensive small bowel resection in the neonatal period: a survey of 87 children. Eur J Paediatr Surg 15:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rossi L, Kadamba P, Hugosson C et al (2007) Pediatric short bowel syndrome: adaptation after massive small bowel resection. J Pediatr 45:213–221Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ching YA, Gura K, Modi B et al (2007) Pediatric intestinal failure: nutrition, pharmacologic and surgical approaches. Nutr Clin Pract 22:653–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Figueroa-Colon R, Harris PR, Birdsong E et al (1996) Impact of intestinal lengthening on the nutritional outcome for children with short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Surg 31:912–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber TR, Powell MA (1996) Early improvement in intestinal function after isoperistaltic bowel lengthening. J Pediatr Surg 31:61–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buluggiu A, Haddad M, Costs M et al (2009) Intestinal loop lengthening: early treatment of vanishing bowel. Pediatr Surg Int 25:449–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richards DM, Hughes SA, Irving MH et al (2001) Patient quality of life after successful restorative proctocolectomy is normal. Colorectal Dis 3:223–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeppesen PB, Langholz E, Mortensen PB (1999) Quality of life in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Gut 44:844–852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pironi L, Paganelli F, Mosconi P et al (2004) The SF-36 instrument for the follow-up of health-related quality-of-life assessment of patients undergoing home parenteral nutrition for benign disease. Transplant Proc 36:255–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Edge H, Hurrell R, Bianchi A et al (2012) Caregiver evaluation and satisfaction with autologous bowel reconstruction in children with short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 54:510–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olieman JF, Poley MJ, Gischler SJ et al (2010) Interdisciplinary management of infantile short bowel syndrome: resource consumption, growth and nutrition. J Pediat Surg 45:490–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spencer AU, Kovacevich D, McKinney-Barnett M et al (2008) Pediatric short-bowel syndrome: the cost of comprehensive care. Am J Clin Nutr 88:1552–1559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. Wood
    • 1
  • B. Khalil
    • 1
  • F. Fusaro
    • 2
  • S. E. Folaranmi
    • 1
  • S. A. Sparks
    • 3
  • A. Morabito
    • 1
  1. 1.Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Pediatric Surgery DepartmentSt Luc University HospitalBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Sport and Physical ActivityEdge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK

Personalised recommendations