title: [Respective indications of enteral or parenteral nutrition during pre- and post-operative periods].
abstract: Denutrition is often associated with poor postoperative outcome. However, a large body of evidence, from studies comparing perioperative parenteral (PN) or enteral (EN) nutrition to the absence of perioperative nutrition, suggests that perioperative nutritional support provides significant improvements in both nutritional status and postoperative clinical outcome in selected patients who are or will become malnourished. The aim of this study was to select and review all relevant articles comparing perioperative parenteral and enteral nutritional support, either in terms of clinical outcome, or risks and costs, or in pathophysiological terms. Twelve clinical reports were reviewed. All contained methodological flaws, mainly type II statistical error due to an insufficient number of patients, inaccurate primary diagnosis, absence of blinding, and lack of objective criteria of judgement. These concerns warrant caution in interpreting the results. Moderately strong (grade B) recommendations can only be drawn from these studies: PN (compared to early EN) is associated with a higher rate of sepsis in patients following abdominal trauma; EN is as efficient as PN in patients following surgery; EN is safe and cheaper than PN. PN formulae lack many important nutrients (glutamine, arginine, cysteine, peptides, fibers, n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and nucleotides). Many experimental (animal) and some clinical (in non surgical patients) studies showed that PN (compared to EN) induces gut mucosal atrophy, liver dysfunction, gut bacterial translocation and immune dysfunction. The final aim of PN and EN would therefore strikingly differ. The qualitatively imperfect PN would only supply the fasting patient with quantitative amounts of calories and proteins. Due to initially limited digestive tolerance, EN provides less nutrition than PN does, but would finally lead to the same or even better outcome, due to its ability to counteract stress induced gut and immune dysfunction. Current evidence therefore suggests that early EN is superior to PN in trauma patients, and not different from but cheaper (and therefore more cost-effective) than PN in surgical patients. Further controlled, randomised, and blinded studies including sufficient sizes of groups are required, especially in the surgical setting, to address a large number of still unanswered questions.
mesh_terms: D004750:Enteral Nutrition; D006801:Humans; D009748:Nutrition Disorders / Q000150:complications / Q000628:therapy*; D010288:Parenteral Nutrition; D011182:Postoperative Care / Q000379:methods*; D011300:Preoperative Care / Q000379:methods*; D011379:Prognosis
vernacular_title: Indications respectives des voies entérale et parentérale en périodes pré et postopératoire.