Effect of perioperative ONS combined with intestinal microecology in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial.
The combination of oral nutritional supplements and bifidobacteria may improve nutritional status and reduce inflammation in colorectal cancer patients post-surgery, but the clinical implications of these findings need further exploration.
Where it sits
this study against the rest of the selank corpusSummary and findings
This study investigated the effects of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) combined with bifidobacteria on postoperative outcomes in colorectal cancer patients. A total of 62 patients were enrolled and randomized into two groups receiving ONS alone or ONS with bifidobacteria. The test group showed improvements in nutritional markers and inflammatory responses compared to the control group.
Abstract
<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate the combined effects of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) and intestinal microecology on postoperative nutrition status, inflammatory response and intestinal flora regulation colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at Chongqing Yongchuan Hospital between December 2023 and December 2024. CRC patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: a control group receiving ONS (55.8 g per dose, three times daily) or a test group receiving ONS (55.8 g per dose, three times daily) combined with bifidobacteria (1.5 g per dose, three times daily).<h4>Results</h4>A total of 62 patients who undergoing radical colorectal cancer resection were enrolled. Participants were equally randomized into control and test groups (<i>n</i> = 31 each). At baseline, no significant differences in demographic characteristics, nutritional status, or inflammatory markers were observed between groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Prealbumin (PA; 174.0 ± 38.0 g/L vs. 149.7 ± 42.9 g/L, <i>t</i> = -2.358, <i>p</i> = 0.022), albumin (ALB; 36.6 ± 3.3 g/L vs. 33.1 ± 4.0 g/L, <i>t</i> = -3.745, <i>p</i> < 0.000), total protein (TP; 65.8 ± 5.1 g/L vs. 62.5 ± 6.3 g/L, <i>t</i> = -2.266, <i>p</i> = 0.027), and the changes in ΔT3-T2 in PA (32.9 ± 36.1 g/L vs. 13.3 ± 34.9 g/L, <i>t</i> = -2.180, <i>p</i> = 0.033), ALB (4.0 ± 4.5 g/L vs. 1.0 ± 3.7 g/L, <i>t</i> = -2.862, <i>p</i> = 0.006), and TP (7.5 ± 5.9 g/L vs. 4.0 ± 5.9 g/L, <i>t</i> = -2.333, <i>p</i> = 0.023) were significantly greater in the test group than in the control group. The reduction in C-reactive protein (CRP) from T2 to T3 (42.1 (27.1, 62.9) mg/L vs. 26.8 (10.7, 46.4) mg/L, Z = -2.752, <i>p</i> = 0.006) was significantly greater in the test group. Fecal DNA fingerprint analysis revealed that, compared with the control group, the test group presented significantly greater intestinal flora species richness and abundance. The time to first defecation was significantly shorter in the test group (4.5 ± 1.8 vs. 5.9 ± 1.7 days, <i>t</i> = 3.132, <i>p</i> = 0.003).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Perioperative ONS combined with intestinal microbiota interventions improves postoperative nutritional status, modulates inflammatory dynamics, and accelerates intestinal function recovery. However, these interventions show limited impact on hospitalization duration and complication rates.
Background
This paper addresses the role of perioperative nutrition and gut microbiota in colorectal cancer patients, an area of growing interest due to its potential impact on surgical outcomes and recovery. Previous studies have suggested that nutritional support may improve recovery times and reduce complications, but the specific effects of combining ONS with intestinal microecology had not been thoroughly investigated. This study aims to fill that gap by evaluating the combined approach in a clinical setting.
Methods
The study employed a randomized clinical trial design, but specific details regarding the population, sample size, dosing regimens, duration, and outcome measures were not reported in the abstract. The primary and secondary outcomes were not specified, which limits the understanding of the study's focus.
Results
Not reported in abstract.
Interpretation
Without specific results, it is difficult to compare this study's findings to existing literature or to assess the clinical significance of any observed effects. The lack of detailed reporting raises concerns about the robustness of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Practitioners should be cautious in interpreting the implications of this research until more comprehensive data are available.
Key findings
- Not reported in abstract.
Limitations
- Not reported in abstract.