Parenteral nutrition in the intensive care unit: cautious use improves outcome.

Critical illness is characterised by nutritional and metabolic disorders, resulting in increased muscle catabolism, fat-free mass loss, and hyperglycaemia. The objective of the nutritional support is to limit fat-free mass loss, which has negative consequences on clinical outcome and recovery. Early enteral nutrition is recommended by current guidelines as the first choice feeding route in ICU patients. However, enteral nutrition alone is frequently associated with insufficient coverage of the energy requirements, and subsequently energy deficit is correlated to worsened clinical outcome. Controlled trials have demonstrated that, in case of failure or contraindications to full enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition administration on top of insufficient enteral nutrition within the first four days after admission could improve the clinical outcome, and may attenuate fat-free mass loss. Parenteral nutrition is cautious if all-in-one solutions are used, glycaemia controlled, and overnutrition avoided. Conversely, the systematic use of parenteral nutrition in the ICU patients without clear indication is not recommended during the first 48 hours. Specific methods, such as thigh ultra-sound imaging, 3rd lumbar vertebra-targeted computerised tomography and bioimpedance electrical analysis, may be helpful in the future to monitor fat-free mass during the ICU stay. Clinical studies are warranted to demonstrate whether an optimal nutritional management during the ICU stay promotes muscle mass and function, the recovery after critical illness and reduces the overall costs.

Biological materials in colorectal surgery: current applications and potential for the future.

Biological materials are increasingly used in abdominal surgery for ventral, pelvic and perineal reconstructions, especially in contaminated fields. Future applications are multi-fold and include prevention and one-step closure of infected areas. This includes prevention of abdominal, parastomal and pelvic hernia, but could also include prevention of separation of multiple anastomoses, suture- or staple-lines. Further indications could be a containment of infected and/or inflammatory areas and protection of vital implants such as vascular grafts. Reinforcement patches of high-risk anastomoses or unresectable perforation sites are possibilities at least. Current applications are based mostly on case series and better data is urgently needed. Clinical benefits need to be assessed in prospective studies to provide reliable proof of efficacy with a sufficient follow-up. Only superior results compared with standard treatment will justify the higher costs of these materials. To date, the use of biological materials is not standard and applications should be limited to case-by-case decision.