JACN Did you know that you can get alerts when a new issue is online?
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Royall, D.
Right arrow Articles by McLeod, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Royall, D.
Right arrow Articles by McLeod, R. S.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol 15, Issue 1 73-78, Copyright © 1996 by American College of Nutrition


CLINICAL TRIAL

Nutritional status and function in patients following Whipple procedure compared with controls

D. Royall, K. N. Jeejeebhoy, B. O'Connor, B. R. Taylor, B. Langer and R. S. McLeod
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the potential for nutritional deficits in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure, long-term assessment of nutritional status has largely been ignored. This study assessed nutritional status of 24 Whipple patients compared with matched post-cholecystectomy controls. METHODS: Clinical assessment was by subjective global assessment, body composition was assessed by bioelectric impedance analysis and functional assessment was by respiratory muscle strength and skeletal muscle function performed by electrical stimulation of the ulnar nerve of the wrist and hand-grip dynamometry. RESULTS: Whipple patients studied 4.6+/-0.7 years since surgery and controls (4.8+/-0.7 years since surgery) were all judged clinically to be in a good nutritional state. Compared with controls, Whipple patients had significantly lower body weight (Whipple: 72.5+/-2.8 kg, control: 83.9+/-3.3 kg, p<0.05) however, the mean body weight of both Whipple and controls was above ideal weight (Whipple: 113.3+/-4.3%, control: 122.3+/-3.7% p = NS). No significant differences in functional performance were observed between groups. Energy intake of Whipple and controls was also comparable. In the Whipple group, neither the extent of gastric resection or the pathological diagnosis had an effect on the nutritional parameters studied. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of patients having undergone Whipple procedure failed to reveal the presence of any nutritional or functional deficits suggesting that a full nutritional recovery is possible after this surgery.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American College of Nutrition.