Scholarlink

Background <p>Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (PGD) is common after laparoscopic gynecological surgery, yet effective preventive interventions remain limited. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) elicits two distinct protective windows—an early phase at 1–3&#xa0;h and a late phase at 24–72&#xa0;h following ischemia—exerting anti‑inflammatory effects that persist for several days, but its role in gastrointestinal recovery after routine gynecological laparoscopy is unknown.</p> Purpose <p>To investigate whether RIPC promotes postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.</p> Methods <p>This prospective, double‑blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled 210 female patients scheduled for elective gynecological laparoscopy. Patients were allocated 1:1:1 to three groups: Enhanced RIPC (true RIPC one day before surgery and again before anesthesia induction), Routine RIPC (sham intervention one day before surgery followed by true RIPC before induction), and Control (sham intervention both times). True RIPC consisted of three 5‑min cycles of 200 mmHg cuff inflation/deflation on the right lower limb; sham intervention used 60 mmHg inflation. The primary outcome was time to first postoperative flatus. Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal function scores at 24&#xa0;h and 48&#xa0;h, inflammatory markers [neutrophil count (Neu), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), systemic inflammation response index (SIRI), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII)], VAS pain scores (rest and activity) at 24&#xa0;h, 36&#xa0;h, and 48&#xa0;h and rescue analgesic/antiemetic events.</p> Results <p>Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Median time to first flatus was significantly shorter in the Enhanced group (23.71&#xa0;h, IQR 20.48–28.04) compared with the Routine group (27.42&#xa0;h, IQR 21.92–32.48) and Control group (31.00&#xa0;h, IQR 28.31–38.88),all pairwise <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05. At 24&#xa0;h and 48&#xa0;h, the Enhanced group had a significantly higher proportion of “good” gastrointestinal function scores than the Control group (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). Postoperative increases in neutrophil count, NLR, SIRI, and SII were significantly attenuated in the Enhanced versus Control group (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). Both resting and activity VAS scores were significantly lower in the Enhanced group at all time points (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). No RIPC‑related adverse events were observed.</p> Conclusion <p>RIPC significantly shortens time to first flatus and attenuates systemic inflammatory responses in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. However, the modest absolute reduction (approximately 7&#xa0;h) and lack of effect on hospital stay suggest a limited clinical impact in the context of standard ERAS care. Further trials are needed to define its role, particularly in high‑risk populations.</p> Trial registration <p>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500095141),2025-01-02.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月6日

查看全文
  • Guo Yang,
  • Shuo Yang,
  • Shuran Lee,
  • Jiancheng Ye,
  • Xueting Ma,
  • Xiaoyu Kang,
  • Qianwei Sun,
  • Wen Shen

摘要

Background

Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (PGD) is common after laparoscopic gynecological surgery, yet effective preventive interventions remain limited. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) elicits two distinct protective windows—an early phase at 1–3 h and a late phase at 24–72 h following ischemia—exerting anti‑inflammatory effects that persist for several days, but its role in gastrointestinal recovery after routine gynecological laparoscopy is unknown.

Purpose

To investigate whether RIPC promotes postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

This prospective, double‑blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled 210 female patients scheduled for elective gynecological laparoscopy. Patients were allocated 1:1:1 to three groups: Enhanced RIPC (true RIPC one day before surgery and again before anesthesia induction), Routine RIPC (sham intervention one day before surgery followed by true RIPC before induction), and Control (sham intervention both times). True RIPC consisted of three 5‑min cycles of 200 mmHg cuff inflation/deflation on the right lower limb; sham intervention used 60 mmHg inflation. The primary outcome was time to first postoperative flatus. Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal function scores at 24 h and 48 h, inflammatory markers [neutrophil count (Neu), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), systemic inflammation response index (SIRI), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII)], VAS pain scores (rest and activity) at 24 h, 36 h, and 48 h and rescue analgesic/antiemetic events.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Median time to first flatus was significantly shorter in the Enhanced group (23.71 h, IQR 20.48–28.04) compared with the Routine group (27.42 h, IQR 21.92–32.48) and Control group (31.00 h, IQR 28.31–38.88),all pairwise P < 0.05. At 24 h and 48 h, the Enhanced group had a significantly higher proportion of “good” gastrointestinal function scores than the Control group (P < 0.05). Postoperative increases in neutrophil count, NLR, SIRI, and SII were significantly attenuated in the Enhanced versus Control group (P < 0.05). Both resting and activity VAS scores were significantly lower in the Enhanced group at all time points (P < 0.05). No RIPC‑related adverse events were observed.

Conclusion

RIPC significantly shortens time to first flatus and attenuates systemic inflammatory responses in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. However, the modest absolute reduction (approximately 7 h) and lack of effect on hospital stay suggest a limited clinical impact in the context of standard ERAS care. Further trials are needed to define its role, particularly in high‑risk populations.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500095141),2025-01-02.