Publication: Effects of a restrictive fluid regimen in pediatric patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
Issued Date
2015-05-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14609592
11555645
11555645
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84926526966
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Paediatric Anaesthesia. Vol.25, No.5 (2015), 530-537
Suggested Citation
Sahatsa Mandee, Wassana Butmangkun, Naiyana Aroonpruksakul, Niramol Tantemsapya, Benno Von Bormann, Suwannee Suraseranivongse Effects of a restrictive fluid regimen in pediatric patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Paediatric Anaesthesia. Vol.25, No.5 (2015), 530-537. doi:10.1111/pan.12589 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/36447
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Effects of a restrictive fluid regimen in pediatric patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objective To investigate the effects of restrictive fluid regimen during major abdominal surgery in pediatric patients. Background In adults, a restrictive and goal-directed regimen as opposed to a liberal-fluid regimen results in better outcomes after various major surgical procedures. The different ratio of body fluid distribution in pediatric patients from those of adults may influence different needs of fluid. Methods This stratified, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 25 pediatric patients (mean age <3 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Patients were allocated to two groups based on their perioperative fluid management. 'control group' received maintenance plus deficit plus interstitial space replacement plus ongoing loss, whereas 'restrictive group' had a similar treatment, but were given no interstitial space replacement. Intraoperative fluid resuscitation was guided by hemodynamics and base excess. Parameters recorded included hemodynamic variables, the volume and type of intravenous fluid, blood chemistry (including lactate, base excess, and electrolyte), chest X-ray, body weight, complications, and return of bowel function. Results Patients in control group needed significantly less additional fluid for resuscitation compared to restrictive group (0.62 ± 3.51 ml·kg-1·h-1vs 5.04 ± 4.16 ml·kg-1·h-1; P = 0.012). In restrictive group, heart rates were higher (P = 0.012) and base excess showed more negative results (P = 0.049). There were no differences between the groups in terms of the total volume requirement, postoperative kidney function, chest X-ray, variation of body weight and the postoperative outcomes. Conclusions Volume preload corresponding with an estimated interstitial space replacement was suitable for application to pediatric patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.