Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dry or wet? Fluid therapy in upper gastrointestinal surgery patients

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A correct perioperative fluid administration represents one of the most important items proposed by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery patients undergoing major oncological procedures are often elderly and frail. Should we prefer a wet or a dry patient? Both conditions should probably be avoided in this surgical setting. We present a narrative review on perioperative fluid administration in UGI patients undergoing major surgery, also analyzing the role of Goal Directed therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Feldheiser A, Aziz O, Baldini G et al (2016) Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: consensus statement for anaesthesia practice. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 60(3):289–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Braga M, Scatizzi M, Borghi F et al (2018) Identification of core items in the enhanced recovery pathway. Clin Nutr ESPEN 25:139–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T et al (2018) Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med 378:2263–2274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wijnberge M, Schenk J, Bulle E et al (2021) Association of intraoperative hypotension with postoperative morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open 5(1):zraa018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Low DE, Allum W, De Manzoni G et al (2019) Guidelines for perioperative care in esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) society recommendations. World J Surg 43(2):299–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagner D, De Marco MM, Amini N et al (2016) Role of frailty and sarcopenia in predicting outcomes among patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(1):27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deng HY, Zha P, Peng L et al (2018) Preoperative sarcopenia is a predictor of poor prognosis of esophageal cancer after esophagectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 32(3):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  8. Parise P, Elmore U, Fumagalli U et al (2016) Esophageal surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and tertiary referral centers entitled to perform it. Upadates Surg 68(2):129–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. American Cancer Society (2019) Cancer Facts & Figures. Atlanta Am Cancer Soc.2019.

  10. Talavera-Urquijo E, Parise P, Palucci M et al (2020) Perfusion speed of indocyanine green in the stomach before tubulization is an objective and useful parameter to evaluate gastric microcirculation during Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 34(12):5649–5659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kamarajah SK, Lin A, Tharmaraja T et al (2020) Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 33(3):doz 089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Theodorou D, Drimousis PG, Larentzakis A et al (2008) The effects of vasopressors on perfusion of gastric graft after esophagectomy. An experimental study. J Gastrointest Surg 12(9):1497–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mortensen K, Nilsson M, Slim K et al (2014) Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy. Brit J Surg 101(10):1209–1229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Xing X, Gao Y, Wang H et al (2015) Correlation of fluid balance and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients after esophagectomy for cancer. J Thorac Dis 7(11):1986–1993

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eng OS, Arlow RL, Moore D et al (2016) Fluid administration and morbidity in transhiatal esophagectomy. J Surg Res 200(1):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rl NG, Thomson IG, Smithers BM et al (2020) Intraoperative fluid restriction during enhanced recovery after surgery versus liberal fluids for esophagectomy: a single center retrospective pilot study. J Clin Anesth 67:110030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Dessel E, Moons J, Nafteux P et al (2021) Perioperative fluid management in esophagectomy for cancer and its relation to postoperative respiratory complications. Dis Esophagus 34(7):doaa 111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klevebro F, Boshier PR, Low DE (2019) Application of standardized hemodynamic protocols within enhanced recovery after surgery programs to improve outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks and conduit necrosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy. J Thoracic Dis 11(Suppl5):S692-701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bahlmann H, Halldestam I, Nilsson L (2019) Goal-directed therapy during transthoracic oesophageal resection does not improve outcome: Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 36(2):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mukai A, Suehiro K, Watanabe R et al (2020) Impact of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy on major morbidity and mortality after transthoracic oesophagectomy: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. B J Anaesth 125(6):953–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wijnberge M, Geerts BF, Hol L et al (2020) Effect of a machine learning-derived early warning system for intraoperative hypotension vs standard care on depth and duration of intraoperative hypotension during elective noncardiac surgery: the HYPE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 323(11):1052–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kingma BF, Eshuis WJ, de Groot EM et al (2020) Paravertebral catheter versus epidural analgesia in minimally invasive esophageal resections: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial). BMC Cancer 20:142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    S. Turi, M. Marmiere & L. Beretta

Authors
  1. S. Turi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Marmiere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Beretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Turi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article. All the authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This research does not involve human participants and/or animals.

Informed consent

Considering the type of publication (systematic review), an informed consent was not necessary.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turi, S., Marmiere, M. & Beretta, L. Dry or wet? Fluid therapy in upper gastrointestinal surgery patients. Updates Surg 75, 325–328 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01352-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01352-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation