Abstract Surgical stress predisposes patients to have immune dysfunction and an increased risk of infection. Malnourished surgical patients have higher postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, higher readmission rates, and higher hospital costs. The use of an immunomodulatory formula is associated in the ESPEN guidelines with a reduction in wound healing problems, suture failure, and infectious and global complications. Several authors have suggested that, since most clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of immunonutrition have been carried out in a traditional perioperative setting, it would be interesting to investigate its efficacy in a more controlled setting, such as in the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) protocol. The objective of this work was: a) to define the role that immunonutrition should play in ERAS protocols based on the best scientific evidence available; b) to analyze the difficulties that continue to exist in real-life clinical practice to screen the nutritional risk of patients; c) to make a proposal of algorithms adapted to the characteristics of our environment regarding the screening, assessment, and nutritional treatment of surgical patients in fast-track surgery.

Resumen El estrés quirúrgico predispone a los pacientes a la disfunción inmune y a un mayor riesgo de infección. Los pacientes quirúrgicos desnutridos presentan una mayor morbimortalidad posoperatoria, mayores tasas de reingreso y costes hospitalarios más elevados. En las guías de la ESPEN se asocia el uso de una fórmula inmunomoduladora a una reducción significativa de los problemas de la cicatrización de heridas, de los fallos de la sutura y de las complicaciones infecciosas y globales. Varios autores han sugerido que, dado que la mayoría de los ensayos clínicos que evalúan la eficacia de la inmunonutrición se han realizado en un entorno perioperatorio tradicional, sería interesante investigar su eficacia en un entorno más controlado, como en el protocolo ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery). El objetivo de este trabajo es: a) definir el papel que debe jugar la inmunonutrición en los protocolos ERAS sobre la base de la mejor evidencia científica; b) analizar las dificultades que siguen existiendo en la práctica clínica real para realizar el cribado del riesgo nutricional del paciente; c) proponer unos algoritmos adaptados a las características de nuestro entorno sobre el cribado, la valoración y el tratamiento nutricional del paciente quirúrgico en modalidad fast-track.

INTRODUÇÃO: O seroma é uma das complicações mais frequentes nas abdominoplastias. OBJETIVO: Comparar a incidência de seroma em pacientes submetidos à abdominoplastia convencional e à lipoabdominoplastia. MÉTODO: Foram estudadas 41 pacientes, divididas em dois grupos: Grupo A (21 pacientes submetidas à abdominoplastia convencional e Grupo B (20 pacientes submetidas à lipoabdominoplastia). Para a investigação da formação de seroma foi realizado ultrassonografia de cinco regiões da parede abdominal (epigástrio (EPI), umbilical (UMB), hipogástrio (HIPO), fossa ilíaca direita (FID) e fossa ilíaca esquerda (FIE)) em dois momentos: entre o 11º e o 14º dia de pós-operatório (DPO) (P1) e entre o 18º e 21º DPO (P2). RESULTADOS: A incidência de seroma tanto em P1 quanto em P2 foi significativamente maior no grupo A que no grupo B. Observou-se que no grupo A, no P1, as regiões FID e FIE apresentaram maior incidência de coleções fluidas. No grupo B, houve uma maior incidência de coleções fluidas na região HIPO em P1 e nas regiões UMB e HIPO em P2. CONCLUSÃO: Houve menor incidência de seroma nos pacientes submetidos à lipoabdominoplastia em relação à abdominoplastia convencional nos momentos estudados.

BACKGROUND: Seroma is one of the most common complications in abdominoplasty. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of seroma formation in patients who underwent either abdominoplasty and lipoabdominoplasty. METHODS: The sample consisted of 41 female patients, who were divided into three groups and underwent one of the following procedures: group A (n=21), abdominoplasty and group B (n=20), lipoabdominoplasty. In order to investigate seroma formation, abdominal ultrasound was performed in 5 regions of the abdominal wall [epigastrium (EPI), umbilical (UMB), hypogastrium (HYPO), right iliac fossa (RIF) and left iliac fossa (LIF)], at two postoperative periods: (P1), between postoperative days 11 and 14, and (P2), between postoperative days 18 and 21. RESULTS: The rate of seroma formation at both P1 and P2 was significantly higher in group A than in group B. It was observed that, in group A at P1, the regions RIF and LIF developed larger fluid collections. In group B, there were significantly larger fluid collections in the HYPO region at P1, and in the UMB and HYPO regions at P2. CONCLUSION: Lipoabdominoplasty is effective technique for the prevention of seroma compared with abdominoplasty.