W.-D. Mi
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
W.-D. Mi has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
H. Zhang
Department of Anesthesia and Operation Center; PLA General Hospital; Beijing China
1 shared publicationJ.-B. Cao
Department of Anesthesia and Operation Center; PLA General Hospital; Beijing China
1 shared publicationL.-H. Xu
Department of Anesthesia and Operation Center; Hainan Branch of PLA General Hospital; Sanya China
1 shared publicationM. Y. Yakoob
Department of Epidemiology; Harvard School of Public Health; Boston MA USA
1 shared publicationW.-Z. Shi
Department of Anesthesia and Operation Center, Hainan Branch of PLA General Hospital, Sanya, China; Department of Anesthesia and Operation Center, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
1 shared publicationY.-G. Jiang
Department of Anesthesia and Operation Center; Hainan Branch of PLA General Hospital; Sanya China
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 24 July 2014
- Published by Wiley in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
- Vol. 58 (8) , 923-932
Recovery of gastrointestinal function with thoracic epidural vs. systemic analgesia following gastrointestinal surgery
The objective of this review was to systematically assess the effect of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) vs. systemic analgesia (SA) on the recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) function in patients following GI surgery. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients undergoing GI surgery, comparing the effect of two postoperative analgesia regimens. Patients postoperatively receiving local anesthesia-based TEA with or without opioids were compared to patients receiving opioid-based SA. The outcomes considered were times to GI function recovery, GI complications, and specific side effects. Twelve studies with 331 patients in the TEA group and 319 in the SA group were included. Compared to SA, TEA improved the GI recovery after GI procedures by shortening the time to first passage of flatus by 31.3 h, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): -33.2 to -29.4, P < 0.01; and shortening the time to first passage of stool by 24.1 h, 95% CIs: -27.2 to -20.9, P < 0.001. There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of anastomotic leakage and ileus. The occurrence of postoperative hypotension was relatively higher in the TEA group, risk ratio: 7.9, 95% CIs: 2.4 to 26.5, P = 0.001; other side effects (such as pruritus and vomiting) were similar in the two groups. There is evidence that TEA (compared to SA) improves the recovery of GI function after GI procedures without any increased risk of GI complications. To further confirm these effects, larger, better quality randomized controlled trials with standard outcome measurements are needed.
- 24 July 2014
- Published by Wiley in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
- Vol. 58 (8) , 923-932
Recovery of gastrointestinal function with thoracic epidural vs. systemic analgesia following gastrointestinal surgery
The objective of this review was to systematically assess the effect of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) vs. systemic analgesia (SA) on the recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) function in patients following GI surgery. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients undergoing GI surgery, comparing the effect of two postoperative analgesia regimens. Patients postoperatively receiving local anesthesia-based TEA with or without opioids were compared to patients receiving opioid-based SA. The outcomes considered were times to GI function recovery, GI complications, and specific side effects. Twelve studies with 331 patients in the TEA group and 319 in the SA group were included. Compared to SA, TEA improved the GI recovery after GI procedures by shortening the time to first passage of flatus by 31.3 h, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): -33.2 to -29.4, P < 0.01; and shortening the time to first passage of stool by 24.1 h, 95% CIs: -27.2 to -20.9, P < 0.001. There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of anastomotic leakage and ileus. The occurrence of postoperative hypotension was relatively higher in the TEA group, risk ratio: 7.9, 95% CIs: 2.4 to 26.5, P = 0.001; other side effects (such as pruritus and vomiting) were similar in the two groups. There is evidence that TEA (compared to SA) improves the recovery of GI function after GI procedures without any increased risk of GI complications. To further confirm these effects, larger, better quality randomized controlled trials with standard outcome measurements are needed.