{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015184381778741865, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004338394793926247, 'mean_word_length': 5.688405797101449, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of complication rates in a single unit between parenteral and enteral nutrition following upper gastrointestinal resection surgery

Background: There is conflicting data on the recommended route of nutrition post-operatively following an upper gastrointestinal resection. Traditionally enteral nutrition is associated with a lower complication rate. We sought to compare the infective and mechanical complication rate between the parenteral and enteral feeding in a single unit which manages both practices. Methods: We went through theatre lists dating back to August 2007, the formation of the upper GI surgery department in Glasgow Royal selecting patients who had an upper GI resection and required post-operative nutrition. Data were collected using patients’ notes from case notes, dietician records and electronic patient records. Data were subsequently analysed using the mini-tab statistical program.