METHODS: This cross-sectional study collected sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, stoma output, and dietary intake upon discharge, hospitalization, and readmission within 30 d of discharge.
RESULTS: A total of 29 participants were recruited, with 72.4% having moderate malnutrition risk. Patients who received partially hydrolyzed guar gum (PHGG) fiber reported lower stoma output with firmer output consistency than patients who received standard care (SC) (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01). Patients who received PHGG achieved higher energy, protein, and soluble fiber intake than did the SC group (P < 0.01) upon discharge. There was a significant inverse association between soluble fiber (PHGG fiber + dietary soluble fiber) intake and ileostomy output (r, -0.494; P = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Partially hydrolyzed guar gum fiber acts as an agent to hold water, reduce the speed of gastrointestinal tract transit, increase effluent viscosity, and potentially decrease water losses. Supplementation with PHGG fiber appeared to minimize ileostomy output and improve clinical outcomes among postoperative ileostomy patients. This needs to be evaluated further with a randomized controlled trial to confirm this preliminary finding.
METHOD: This prospective study targeted those admitted for bariatric surgery. Participants underwent the biweekly pre-habilitation program included an individualized high whey-based protein very low-calorie (VLCHP) enteral regime (600-900 kcal/day) and moderate intensive exercise before bariatric surgery. Body composition and waist circumference were assessed after fortnight. Participants were segregated into morbid obese (MOG) (BMI <49 kg/m2) and super morbid obese group (SMOG) (BMI ≥50 kg/m2) for analysis.
RESULT: Majority of participants were female (71%) with median age 36.0 years old (MOG) and 34.3 years old (SMOG) respectively. SMOG achieved significant greater loss in weight (-7.4 kg vs -4.0 kg), fat percentage (-4.4% vs -1.7%) and fat mass (-9.9 kg vs -3.8 kg); but MOG had a significant increment in muscle mass (3.2 kg vs 2.8 kg) as compared to SOG (p