European Journal of Medical Research (Oct 2011)

Malnutrition and clinical outcome in urological patients

  • Karl A,
  • Staehler M,
  • Bauer R,
  • Tritschler S,
  • Hocaoglu Y,
  • Buchner A,
  • Hoffmann J,
  • Kuppinger D,
  • Stief C,
  • Rittler P

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-783X-16-10-469
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 10
p. 469

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Introduction In a previous study we evaluated the risk for malnutrition among urological patients in a German university hospital. There are published different studies in other surgical fields that could show a correlation between malnutrition and clinical outcome. As data on this issue is still rare in the urological field we aimed to correlate the risk of malnutrition with different parameters regarding clinical outcome. Methods In the time from 2007 to 2009 a total of 320 patients were evaluated regarding the risk of malnutrition and occurrence of complications during the time of hospitalization at our Urological department. The Nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS) by Kondrup et al. was used for the estimation of the risk level for malnutrition. Patients of a German university hospital were included independently of intervention, age or gender. Parameters for clinical outcome were: pulmonary complications (infectious/noninfectious), cardiovascular complications (infectious/noninfectious), other infections (urinary tract infection etc.), wound healing disorders and time of hospitalization. Results In this evaluation 320 patients were included for analysis. Forty patients (13%) presented with a normal nutritional status (NRS score 0) at the time of admission to the hospital and 212 patients (66%) were at risk for forming malnutrition problems (NRS score 1-2). sixty eight patients (21%) of this urological cohort were detected with a malnutrition according to the applied NRS score (≥3). Regarding the occurrence of overall complications in this cohort the rate was rather low compared to other surgical fields. Of 320 patients only 22 patients (7%) presented with relevant complications during their hospitalization. However if data were stratified for peri- and postoperative complications in correlation to nutritional status of patients, an evident trend to a higher complication rate of 9% was obvious. Conclusions In our cohort of exclusively urological patients, the risk for post-surgical complications was higher in patients who were malnourished as defined using the Nutritional Risc Screening System (NRS) by Kondrup et al. Further studies need to show whether an adequate nutritional supportive therapy could help to optimize the clinical outcome of malnourished urological patients.

Keywords