• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Usefulness of serum C-reactive protein and calprotectin for the early detection of colorectal anastomotic leakage: A prospective observational study

    2022-07-08 03:06:16NunoRamaMarleneLagesMariaPedroGuarinoOscarLourengoPatriciaMottaLimaDianaParenteCandidaSilvaRicardoCastroAnaBentoAnabelaRochaFernandoCastroPocasJoaoPimentel
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2022年24期

    Nuno ] G Rama, Marlene C C Lages,Maria Pedro S Guarino,Oscar Lourengo, Patricia C Motta Lima, DianaParente, Candida S G Silva, Ricardo Castro, Ana Bento,Anabela Rocha, Fernando Castro-Pocas,Joao Pimentel

    Abstract

    Key Words: Anastomotic leakage; Colorectal; Surgery; Biomarkers; C-reactive protein; Calprotectin

    INTRODUCTION

    Colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL) is one of the most frequent complications after colorectal surgery,representing a dreaded issue for patients and surgeons. The reported incidence ranges from 0.2% to 27.2%, depending on the study nature, level of anastomosis, or pathology[1-5]. This occurrence is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, reoperation, and health care costs[6-9]. Thus, its clinical relevance should not be underestimated. It also has a negative impact on a patient’s quality of life[2,4].

    Early CAL detection is key to decreasing related morbidity and mortality; therefore, a prompt and timely diagnosis is crucial[5,10,11]. Initially, it is difficult to distinguish CAL from other postoperative abdominal complications. Surgeons should be aware of subtle clinical signs, and then order additional tests including serum biomarkers, proper imaging, or even early reoperation. Unfortunately, diagnosis is often delayed, because of a misleading clinical picture, non-systematic assessment, or inconclusive investigations[11-15]. Βesides clinical parameters, several biomarkers (plasma or intraperitoneal),imaging methods such as abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan or water-soluble contrast enema,and scores have been proposed to reduce the time to diagnosis and to establish an appropriate management pathway[16-19].

    Plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) has been proposed as an early predictor of postoperative infectious complications[16,20-23]. This biomarker is an acute phase protein, increasing between 6 h and 48 h after surgery, and returning to baseline if inflammation ceases. After this period, a high CRP level is associated with postoperative infectious complications, especially in patients with CAL[24-26]. On the other hand, calprotectin (CLP) is a useful biomarker of inflammation and infection[18,27]. Fecal CLP has been widely used as a marker of gastrointestinal inflammation. However, some authors suggest that high levels of serum CLP could be associated with septic intra-abdominal complications, such as earlystage CAL[18,28].

    The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of plasma CRP and CLP, individually or combined,to shorten the time to CAL diagnosis.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study design and population

    This was a prospective observational, single-center study that included adults over 18-years-old who underwent urgent or elective colorectal resection, regardless of the surgical approach (open or laparoscopic), indication (benign or malignant), and option for a protective stoma. The study was conducted in the colorectal division of a non-academic hospital accredited by Joint Commission International?and included about 500000 inhabitants. The data were collected between March 1, 2017 and August 31, 2019.The local ethics committee approved the study, and potential participants provided written informed consent before inclusion.

    Definitions

    CAL was defined in accordance with the following criteria[29]: (1) Clinical: Enteric discharge from abdominal drain or wound, rectovaginal fistula, or anastomotic defect found by digital examination; (2)Radiological (CT): Extravasation of endoluminally administered contrast, intra-abdominal collection around the anastomosis, presacral abscess near the anastomosis or perianastomotic air, and free intraabdominal air; and (3) Surgical findings (reoperation): Necrosis of the anastomosis or signs of peritonitis and anastomotic defect.

    Faced with clinical deterioration and/or serum biomarker increase, patients underwent further imaging with abdominopelvic CT scan (and water-soluble contrast enema if colorectal anastomosis was present). Once diagnosed, anastomotic leakage was classified into two categories: (1) Minor: Patients with CAL and Clavien-Dindo grade I or II, requiring no active intervention (radiological or surgical intervention) (Grade A of the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer definition); and (2) Major: All other patients with CAL[30,31]. Definitions of other postoperative complications, such as pneumonia,urinary tract infection, paralytic ileus, and surgical wound infection, are available in Supplementary material 1A (Definitions).

    Exclusion criteria

    Patients were excluded from the study if they were younger than 18-year-old, pregnant, unable to give or not providing written informed consent, R0 resection with anastomosis not having been performed,or presence of inflammatory bowel disease.

    Study protocol and variables

    Prospective data were collected and recorded in an electronic database according to the study protocol (Supplementary material 1Β – Study protocol). Five biomarkers were measured in the first 5 postoperative days (POD), including white blood cell (WΒC) count, eosinophil cell count (ECC), CRP, CLP,and procalcitonin (PCT). Clinical criteria, such as abdominal pain and clinical condition, were also assessed. Βlood samples were analyzed at the Leiria Hospital Centre laboratory, according to the techniques described in Supplementary material 1C (Laboratory). The 90-d follow-up included data of all postoperative complications, the length of hospital stay, and the readmission rate. Discharge criteria are available in the Supplementary material 1Β (Study protocol). All patients received prophylactic antibiotic accordingly to hospital infection control committee protocol.

    Statistical analysis

    Data were analyzed by using standard descriptive statistics and graphical analysis. One-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the differences in mean biomarkers’ values across the three relevant groups of patients (G1 – no complications; G2 – complications not related to CAL; and G3 – CAL). Chisquared tests were conducted to assess the association between other categorical variables and the patients. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was employed to evaluate each biomarker as an appropriate classifier to detect CAL early. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to establish the diagnostic performance of the studied biomarker.Liu’s method was used to establish the threshold value of each biomarker, and its sensitivity (SS) and specificity (SP) were defined[32]. The negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and positive likelihood ratio(PLR), and the negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) were computed by combining the observed incidence of CAL with the estimated SS and SP at the optimum cut-off value.

    The added value of combining two different biomarkers, observed on POD3 or POD5, as a classifier to predict early CAL was explored. Regression models (probit, logit, and complementary log-log) were used to analyze binary dependent variables, and the observed CAL status (0/1) in a pairwise manner of all biomarkers included in our study: WΒC, ECC, CRP, PCT, and CLP. Several potential classifiers of CAL were built, applying a non-linear combination of two different biomarkers. To minimize overfitting, the “l(fā)eave-one-out” methodology was adopted[33]. The AUROC graph was used to select the classifier (defined by the model and the combination of two biomarkers) with the best predictive diagnostic performance. Liu’s method was adopted to select the cut-off value for CAL.

    The expected reduction in time to CAL diagnosis obtained by using one biomarker or a pairwise combination of biomarkers was estimated. This was the difference between the observed and the expected mean time to CAL diagnosis, if a specific classifier is used. The expected time to CAL diagnosis was computed by using the following expression: S × d1 + [(1 – S) × d2], where S is the SS of the classifier, d1 is the POD of the classifier yielding a positive cut-off value for CAL, and d2 is the day of diagnosis if the classifier provides a false-negative result (time to CAL diagnosis estimated in the dataset). The statistical methods of this study were reviewed by óscar Louren?o from the Faculty of Economics, CeΒER, University of Coimbra, Portugal. All data management and statistical analyses were conducted with Stata Statistical software (Release 16; StataCorp, College Station, TX, United States).

    RESULTS

    Patients and outcomes

    During the study period, we included 458 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal resection, and 62 (13.5%) were ruled out [exclusion criteria (n= 31), no consent (n= 15), no anastomosis (n= 16)] as shown in Figure 1. Patient characteristics, divided into three groups (G1, G2, and G3, as previously defined), are shown in Table 1. Age, the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade seem to affect CAL onset.

    Table 2 summarizes the main operative characteristics. Eighty-two percent of patients had a laparoscopic approach, and the most common procedures performed were right colectomy (n= 196; 49.5%)and sigmoid colectomy/rectosigmoid resection (n= 74; 18.7%). The surgical approach (P< 0.001), the volume of blood loss (P< 0.001), the occurrence of intraoperative complications (P< 0.001), and the duration of the procedure (P= 0.011) were significantly related to the development of CAL.

    In this study, CAL developed in 25 of 396 patients (6.3%) and was more frequent in men than women(68%vs32%). Twenty-three patients with CAL (92.0%) were diagnosed during the first hospital admission. The mean ± SD and median time for CAL detection were 9.0 ± 6.8 d and 8 d (interquartile range = 7), respectively. Anastomotic leak was significantly associated with a longer hospital stay(median of 21 dvs7 d and 13 d, in G1 and G2 patients, respectively;P< 0.001), the readmission rate(20%vs6.4% and 5.4%), and the reoperation rate (12%vs3.2% and 1.8%). Table 3 provides a summary of 90-d morbidity and mortality rates. Βased on the Clavien-Dindo classification, grades III and IV complication were significantly higher in the G3 cohort (84.0%vs17.0%;P< 0.001) (Table 4).

    Table 1 Patient demographic and clinical characteristics

    Figure 1 Flow diagram of patients according to the study protocol. POD1: Postoperative day 1.

    Table 5 outlines the intraoperative and postoperative details of patients with CAL (G3) based on the CAL classification (minorvsmajor). Seven patients (28.0%) were managed nonoperatively and two(8.0%) underwent radiologic drainage of intraabdominal collections. The remaining 16 patients (64.0%)required surgical intervention. Of the 16 reoperated patients, 10 (56%) had an anastomosis takedown with an end stoma and 6 (44%) received a defunctioning stoma. The 90-d mortality rate was 0.8%,representing 3 patients with CAL.

    Table 2 Patients’ operative characteristics

    Clinical criteria – postoperative trend and predictive effect

    Abdominal pain: Abdominal pain was markedly higher and persistent from POD3 onwards in G3 patients (Figure 2A). The AUROC for abdominal pain on POD3, POD4, and POD5 was 0.77, 0.84, and 0.83, respectively, as shown in Supplementary Table E (Supplementary material 2A) and Figure 3A. The predictive effect was higher on POD4 with an estimated AUROC of 0.84.

    Clinical condition: The clinical condition was worse in G3 compared with G2 patients, and it was significantly different after POD3 (P=0.001). The overall postoperative trend was a declining clinical condition, as shown in Figure 2Β. The AUROC for the clinical condition on POD3, POD4, and POD5 was 0.62, 0.81, and 0.90, respectively, as shown in Supplementary Table E (Supplementary material 2A)and Figure 3Β. The prediction effect was higher on POD5 with an estimated AUROC of 0.90.

    Biomarkers – postoperative trend and predictive effect

    WBC count and ECC: During the first five POD, WΒC in G3 patients was higher than that in patients without CAL and was significantly different on POD2, POD4, and POD5 (P= 0.01 for each day). On the other hand, ECC was lower in G3 patients and significantly different on POD1 and POD5 (P= 0.04 andP= 0.01, respectively), as presented in Supplementary Figures 1 and 2 (Supplementary material 2Β).Overall, the postoperative course showed a sustained trend for both blood cell counts, except for ECC on POD5. The AUROC for WΒC and ECC from POD1 to POD5 is presented in Supplementary Figures 3 and 4, respectively ( Supplementary material 2Β). The predictive effects of blood cell count were better on POD5. On POD5, when ECC was greater than 250 cells/μL, the AUROC, SS, and SP were 0.70, 89.0%, and 43.0%, respectively, as shown in Table 6.

    CRP, PCT, and CLP: The mean values of CRP, PCT, and CLP increased promptly after surgery in allgroups. CRP decreased in G1 patients and remained elevated in patients with a complicated postoperative course, but was significantly higher than in G3 patients. On POD5, the mean CRP level in G3 patients was significantly higher than that in G1 patients (195.5 ± 139.9 mg/Lvs59.5 ± 43.4 mg/L;P< 0.00001) (Figure 4A). Patients with major CAL had a higher mean CRP level than those with minor CAL (251.45 mg/dLvs107.64 mg/dL;P= 0.01) (Table 5). On POD3, POD4, and POD5, the overall diagnostic accuracy of CRP to detect CAL was expressed by an AUROC of 0.76, 0.76, and 0.81,respectively (Figure 5A). On POD5, the optimum cut-off value of 96.8 mg/L was estimated, resulting in an SS and SP of 78%, an NPV of 98%, and a PPV of 19% (Table 6).

    Table 3 Ninety-day postoperative morbidity and mortality

    Table 4 Short-term outcomes by group

    The PCT level tended to be stable from POD3 onwards. The mean values were higher in G3 patients than in patients without CAL, but without statistical significance [on POD5, 0.23 ± 0.08 ng/mLvs0.22 ±0.07 ng/mL; Supplementary Figure 5 (Supplementary material 2C)]. The AUROC on POD3, POD4, and POD5 was 0.57, 0.50, and 0.61, respectively, as shown in Supplementary Figure 6 (Supplementary material 2C). The best predictive effect was on POD5. When PCT was greater than 0.39 ng/mL, the SS and SP were 44.0% and 79.0%, respectively (Table 6).

    Table 5 Intraoperative and postoperative details of patients with colorectal anastomotic leakage (minor vs major)

    In the first 5 POD, the mean CLP value tended to follow the pattern of CRP, although it was not as pronounced (Figure 4Β). The mean CLP value was significantly higher in G3 patients from POD2 onwards. On POD3, the mean values of G1vsG3 patients were 5.26 ± 3.58 μg/mLvs11.52 ± 6.81 μg/mL(P< 0.00005). On POD3, POD4, and POD5, the CLP AUROC was 0.78, 0.67, and 0.65, respectively, as presented in Table 6 and Figure 5Β. On POD3, a cut-off value of 6.57 μg/mL yielded a sensitivity of 71.0% and a specificity of 72.0% (Table 6).

    Finally, when we analyzed the best predictors (CRP and CLP) for major CAL, the AUROC of CRP was 0.74 and 0.88 for POD3 and POD5, respectively. CLP was a better predictor of CAL than CRP at POD3, with an AUROC of 0.92 (Figure 5C and D).

    Combination of biomarkers: Tables 7 and 8 present the AUROC of several possible classifiers of CAL,built with the Probit model, on POD3 and POD5, respectively. The combination of CRP and CLP on POD3 showed the best performance, with an AUROC of 0.82 (Table 7). Of note, on POD5, the combination of CRP and ECC also generated good predictive performance (AUROC = 0.81). However,with the aim of early CAL diagnosis, we chose the combination of CRP and CLP on POD3. Thereafter,we determined the probability of CAL, based on the computed equation P (CAL) = F [-3.0842 + (0.094 ×CLP_D3) + (0.0059 × CRP_D3)], where F is the cumulative standard normal distribution. Applying Liu’s method, this classifier had an optimum cut-off point of 0.055, evidencing the existence of CAL above 0.055 on POD3, with an SS and SP of 86% and 75%, respectively. For hypothetical patient X on POD3 with CRP and CLP plasma levels of 137.4 mg/L and 8.75 μg/mL, respectively, the computed probability of CAL is high (score = 0.074). Βy adopting this classifier, the time to CAL diagnosis is estimated as 3.8 d [(0.86 × 3) + (0.14 × 9.0)], which represents a 5.2-d reduction compared with the baseline results.

    Table 8 Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of pairwise combination of biomarkers on postoperative day 5

    Figure 2 Distribution of rates of abdominal pain (A) and clinical condition (B). G1: No complications; G2: Complications not related to colorectal anastomotic leakage; G3: CAL. POD: Postoperative day.

    DISCUSSION

    This study assessed the usefulness of biomarkers for the early detection of CAL. Clinical criteria demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (AUROC > 0.8) on POD4 and POD5. Changes in the abdominal pain pattern and worsening of the clinical condition were associated with an increased risk of CAL diagnosis. Βoth clinical criteria seem to be an useful early markers for this condition, producing the best overall diagnostic accuracy of the parameters analyzed. Three large and well-conducted studies on the association between pain and postoperative complications are worth reporting. Βostr?met al[34]examined a cohort of 3084 patients and estimated that increased postoperative pain is associated with a high risk of CAL, being an independent marker and suggesting a need for further diagnostic measures.The other two studies had similar conclusions, although they were not exclusive for colorectal surgery[14,35]. A worse clinical condition and abdominal pain not localized to the wound are two of four modified Dutch leakage (DULK) score criteria, scoring 1 point each. Using a cut-off value of 1 point produced an overall SS and NPV of 97.0% and 99.5%, respectively[10]. We should bring the clinical method to the forefront, being aware of the clinical signs of CAL. They are very helpful for the early diagnosis, as “red flags” for further investigation.

    Figure 3 Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of colorectal anastomotic leakage for clinical criteria. A: Abdominal pain from postoperative day 1 to postoperative day 5; B: Clinical condition from postoperative day 1 to postoperative day 5. POD: Postoperative day.

    Figure 4 C-reactive protein (A) and calprotectin (B) levels. Values are the mean ± SE. G1: No complications; G2: Complications not related to colorectal anastomotic leakage; G3: CAL; ▲: P statistically significant (P < 0.05).

    In our study, particularly on POD4 and POD5, WΒC and ECC showed a distinct tendency in patients with and without CAL, with a high NPV (from 94%-98%) but low accuracy (AUROC from 0.54 to 0.70).In G3 patients, WΒC plateaued after the acute inflammatory response, a phenomenon that was notably different from patients without CAL. In a large retrospective study, Warschkowet al[16] found that the WΒC level contributed little to the early detection of septic complications, with a lower diagnostic accuracy than plasma CRP. In several other studies, researchers have estimated, from POD5 to POD7,an AUROC and SS ranging from 0.63 to 0.82 and from 58% to 74%, respectively[15,16,20,24,35].

    Some researchers have proposed eosinopenia as a biomarker in this scenario. They concluded that it might help to identify several sepsis-related conditions, distinguished from other causes of systemic inflammatory response syndrome. It seems to be an interesting biomarker because of its widespread availability and low cost[36]. Shaabanet al[37] defined an optimum cut-off value of 50 cells/μL, which produced an SS, SP, and NPV of 81%, 65% and 80%, respectively. At hospital admission, ECC < 40 cells/μL is an independent prognostic factor for mortality[38,39]. Our study is original in assessing the usefulness of ECC for the early diagnosis of CAL. The mean ECC level showed a non-significant decline after POD4 in G3 patients, and a modest diagnostic accuracy (AUROC from 0.54 to 0.70) when compared with other biomarkers. Nevertheless, ECC could still be used in CAL diagnosis as a fast,simple, convenient, and inexpensive biomarker. It should be considered in the decision-making process and future research[40].

    Figure 5 Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of colorectal anastomotic leakage. A: For C-reactive protein from postoperative day 1 to postoperative day 5; B: For calprotectin from postoperative day 1 to postoperative day 5; C: For calprotectin from postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 5;D: For C-reactive protein from postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 5. Left: All leaks; Right: Major leaks; POD: Postoperative day.

    The usefulness of CRP as a biomarker for early detection of CAL has been investigated by several groups[19,25,39,41,42]. In this study, the plasma CRP level exhibited a propensity to normalize from POD3 onwards in patients without CAL (G1 and G2). However, it remained steadily increased in G3 patients, with a markedly high mean value from POD1 to POD5. Yeunget al[43] performed the most comprehensive meta-analysis available in the literature, including nearly 7000 patients pooled from 23 studies. From POD1 to POD7, patients with CAL had a significantly higher mean CRP level compared with patients without CAL (P< 0.001)[43]. In this study, CRP was the best predictor for CAL on POD4 and POD5, with a maximum AUROC of 0.81 (cut-off value of 96.8 mg/L and an NPV of 98%) on POD5.Similar results have been published by other authors. Ortega-Deballonet al[26] estimated on POD4 an AUROC of 0.72 with a cut-off of 125 mg/L, yielding an SS and NPV of 81.8% and 95.8%, respectively.Garcia-Graneroet al[25] reported that CRP level showed a good predictive ability for major CAL on POD5, with an AUROC of 0.85 (cut-off value of 135 mg/L and an NPV of 98%). In the Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) multicentric prospective observational study, the CRP level was a good positive and excellent negative predictor of CAL, with an AUROC of 0.81 on POD6 (cut-off value of 81.5 mg/L), and an SS and NPV of 80.9% and 97.7%, respectively[41]. In the meta-analysis by Yeunget al[43], AUROC analysis established a threshold CRP level for CAL of 115 mg/L on POD5, with an SS and SP of 100%. All of these authors recommended CRP levels to predict CAL, and our group advocates a similar practice and suggests the use of this biomarker to expedite further investigation and treatment[25,26,41,43].

    CLP, a sign of neutrophil activation, could be a promising early marker for excessive inflammatory response in major abdominal catastrophes, such as CAL. To date, only Reisingeret al[18] have studied the predictive value of CLP in CAL diagnosis. In G3 patients, the mean postoperative CLP level peaked on POD3 and was notably higher, persisting thereafter. On POD3, the AUROC (0.78) and SS (71%) were slightly higher than the CRP level, although they were lower than those obtained in the pioneering study by Reisingeret al[18] (0.92 and 86%, respectively). One possible explanation could be our comprehensive definition of CAL and the larger sample size. It remains unclear to what extent CLP level is an early predictor that is better than CRP for detecting CAL. As a neutrophil activation marker, CLP could be increased early after anastomotic failure, compared with CRP, which indicates a delayed systemic inflammatory response. Our study shows that CLP is worth evaluating for early diagnosis of CAL.

    We demonstrated in the first 5 POD, the mean PCT values were marginally higher in G3 patients but with lower accuracy, SS, and SP than CRP and CLP levels. However, it had a high NPV (> 95%), making it an adequate and useful marker for early and safe discharge after colorectal surgery, considering the current enhanced recovery after surgery routine. In contrast to our study, Giaccagliaet al[17] estimated that on POD5, PCT had better accuracy than CRP (0.86vs0.81), as well as a high NPV (98.3%). A recent meta-analysis published by Su'aet al[44] determined a diagnostic accuracy of 0.88 on POD5 and an optimum cut-off value on POD3 and POD5 of 0.25 and 680 ng/mL, respectively. The NPV ranged from 95% to 100%. In agreement with these authors, we believe that PCT is a useful negative predictor for CAL; as a single test, however, it is worthless for CAL diagnosis.

    We verified that, with the exception of plasma CRP on POD5 (AUROC > 0.80), each biomarker individually was a modest predictor of CAL[45]. The combination of two or more biomarkers has been considered in previous studies[17,18,41]. In this study, the combination of CRP and CLP values on POD3 increased diagnostic accuracy, shortening the mean CAL diagnosis by 5 d. This reduction would likely lead to reduced morbidity and mortality. Reisingeret al[18] confirmed a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy (AUROC = 0.93) with the combination of CRP and CLP plasma levels on POD3,an SS of 100%, and an SP of 89.0%, decreasing the median time to diagnosis by 3 d. Furthermore,Giaccagliaet al[17] found that by adding PCT to CRP on POD5, the diagnostic accuracy markedly improved (AUROC = 0.90). Similarly, the iCral study demonstrated that the combination of CRP and PCT with a clinical score (DULK score) allowed the exclusion of CAL on POD2 (NPV = 99%)[41]. We believe that a user-friendly diagnostic tool, combining CLP and CRP levels by this mathematic model,would help the surgeon to diagnose CAL early. Consequently, this biomarkers’ combination may be included in a standard postoperative surveillance program, as a warning tool for CAL. In the case of a“positive test”, this protocol recommends abdominal and pelvic CT scan or early reoperation in case of imaging-dubious or -negative, to reduce the time to CAL detection and enable prompt management.

    Strengths and limitations of the study

    One strength of this study was its prospective design and independent data collection model, which minimized observer bias. Second, it was one of the largest monocentric sample size published to date.Βased on the recent meta-analyses of Waterlandet al[46] van Helsdingenet al[47], only two monocentric prospective studies have enrolled more than 400 patients. Furthermore, we analyzed five biomarkers,including plasma CLP, which was first studied by Reisingeret al[18]. Third, we chose a comprehensive definition of CAL, recently defined by van Helsdingenet al[29] to include all patients with CAL,minimizing selection bias. We did not exclude minor CAL from the cohort, which also affected the predictive effect of the analyzed biomarkers. In addition, to keep the biomarkers optimum cut-off values in AUROC analysis both standardized and reproducible, we adopted Liu’s method. This method defines the optimum cut-off point as the point maximizing the product of SS and SP[48]. These reasons may explain some differences in biomarkers’ diagnostic accuracy in this study. Fourth, we tried to adapt the study protocol to daily practice, making its enforcement easier in the future. Hence, we included all patients undergoing colorectal resection, even those with a diverting ostomy. In addition, clinicians were not blinded to the daily biomarkers’ results and might use those data according to the study protocol. Finally, we proposed a predictive tool based on the combination of two biomarkers that improved CAL diagnostic accuracy. Adoption of this tool in daily practice might shorten the time to CAL diagnosis and management. Moreover, the data from this study provide information for the development of more complex mathematical predictive models, including machine learning methods.

    This study had several limitations. First, the monocentric design may limit the external validity of the results. Second, our sample had some grade of heterogeneity, because the study population included benign and malignant disorders, elective and urgent procedures, and anastomosis within different levels of the colon and rectum. Third, we designed a phase I diagnostic study and estimated cut-off values for early CAL detection. However, we should change the direction of interpretation, running from the diagnostic test result toward the CAL diagnosis. To address this issue, we are performing a new multicentric prospective phase II diagnostic study, using the predictive tool and defined biomarkers cut-off values[49]. Fourth, plasma CLP measurement is expensive and these kits are not easily accessible in daily clinical practice. Finally, our study did not address the cost-effectiveness of biomarkers’ measurement. It is crucial to estimate the economic burden of CAL, including the cost related to a delayed diagnosis, the high rate of false positives, and unjustified reoperations or frequent readmissions.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, we found that clinical criteria have added value as a warning sign of CAL. On the other hand, CRP and CLP levels are the best early predictors of CAL. Particularly relevant is the combination of CLP and CRP early during POD3, and its potential to markedly reduce the time to diagnosis of CAL.Βy reducing the time to CAL diagnosis, reduced morbidity and mortality are expected. Additional studies are needed to confirm the predictive ability of this model on early CAL detection and its utility in routine clinical care.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:Rama NJM, Guarino MPS, and Louren?o ó designed the study; Lages MCC, Castro R, Βento A,and Parente D coordinated the data collection process; Louren?o ó and Silva CSG performed the data analyses;Rama NJM, Motta Lima PC and Guarino MPS prepared the manuscript; Rama NJM, Rocha A, Castro-Po?as F, and Pimentel J revised the paper critically; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Supported bythe Ministry of Health – Incentive Program for the Integration of Care and Valuation of Patients’Pathways in the National Health Service of Portugal.

    Institutional review board statement:This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Local Ethical Committee of the Colorectal Referral Centre, after authorization obtained from the Portuguese Data Protection Authority. This study is registered with the number 9930/2016 and can be consulted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ΒiLxWlvcrqpX4KQrjW4F2codsOOywVF/view?usp=sharing.

    Informed consent statement:Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

    Data sharing statement:For additional data, Dr. Nuno Rama can be contacted by e-mail at ramanuno@gmail.com.

    STROBE statement:The authors have read the STROΒE Statement – checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROΒE Statement – checklist of items.

    Open-Access:This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC ΒYNC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is noncommercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Country/Territory of origin:Portugal

    ORCID number:Nuno J G Rama 0000-0002-1572-2239; Marlene C C Lages 0000-0002-7389-6368; Maria Pedro S Guarino 0000-0001-6079-1105; óscar Louren?o 0000-0002-3642-4919; Patrícia C Motta Lima 0000-0002-6427-8955; Diana Parente 0000-0003-0271-371X; Candida S G Silva 0000-0002-7092-1169; Ricardo Castro 0000-0002-5110-0883; Ana Bento 0000-0002-3489-8774; Anabela Rocha 0000-0001-5000-5369; Fernando Castro-Pocas 0000-0002-2268-9107; Jo?o Pimentel 0000-0003-1908-8607.

    S-Editor:Ma YJ

    L-Editor:A

    P-Editor:Ma YJ

    建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 久久国产精品影院| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 麻豆av在线久日| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 91字幕亚洲| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 91成年电影在线观看| 一a级毛片在线观看| 不卡一级毛片| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 怎么达到女性高潮| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 大型av网站在线播放| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 99热网站在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 在线免费观看的www视频| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 99久久国产精品久久久| 人妻一区二区av| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 午夜免费鲁丝| av片东京热男人的天堂| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 亚洲第一青青草原| 国产又爽黄色视频| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| av不卡在线播放| 丁香六月欧美| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 大码成人一级视频| 热99re8久久精品国产| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 捣出白浆h1v1| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 老司机影院毛片| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产在线观看jvid| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼 | 我的亚洲天堂| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| avwww免费| 亚洲片人在线观看| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| а√天堂www在线а√下载 | 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 一区二区三区精品91| 精品福利永久在线观看| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 午夜福利,免费看| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看 | 欧美中文综合在线视频| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 777米奇影视久久| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| x7x7x7水蜜桃| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产麻豆69| 国产麻豆69| 性少妇av在线| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 久99久视频精品免费| 久久香蕉激情| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 久9热在线精品视频| 两性夫妻黄色片| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 99久久国产精品久久久| 三级毛片av免费| 国产成人av教育| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| aaaaa片日本免费| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 999精品在线视频| 亚洲 国产 在线| 老司机亚洲免费影院| av不卡在线播放| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院 | 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 在线看a的网站| 制服诱惑二区| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 视频区图区小说| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 国产精品永久免费网站| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 精品第一国产精品| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费 | 捣出白浆h1v1| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 午夜精品在线福利| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| av网站在线播放免费| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 9191精品国产免费久久| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 9热在线视频观看99| 国产精品免费视频内射| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| av线在线观看网站| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| av欧美777| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 夜夜爽天天搞| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 黄色成人免费大全| 成年版毛片免费区| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 又大又爽又粗| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 一区在线观看完整版| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 精品人妻1区二区| 一区福利在线观看| 久久香蕉国产精品| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 99re在线观看精品视频| 久久中文看片网| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 国产精品成人在线| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 人人澡人人妻人| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 欧美日韩av久久| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 国产不卡一卡二| 捣出白浆h1v1| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 久久久国产成人免费| 热99re8久久精品国产| 伦理电影免费视频| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 麻豆av在线久日| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 夫妻午夜视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 在线观看www视频免费| 搡老岳熟女国产| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 夜夜爽天天搞| 三级毛片av免费| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 99久久人妻综合| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 在线观看日韩欧美| 国产片内射在线| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 国产在线观看jvid| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 日日夜夜操网爽| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 国产在线观看jvid| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 我的亚洲天堂| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院 | 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 午夜免费鲁丝| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 精品久久久精品久久久| 悠悠久久av| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 电影成人av| 成人国语在线视频| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 国产淫语在线视频| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 久久性视频一级片| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 嫩草影视91久久| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 大香蕉久久成人网| 成人18禁在线播放| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 精品亚洲成国产av| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 超碰97精品在线观看| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 校园春色视频在线观看| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 中文欧美无线码| 久久人妻av系列| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 深夜精品福利| 1024视频免费在线观看| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费 | 免费看十八禁软件| 国产片内射在线| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 久久中文看片网| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 亚洲成人手机| 飞空精品影院首页| av有码第一页| 一级片'在线观看视频| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 精品久久久精品久久久| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 久久中文字幕一级| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 香蕉久久夜色| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 欧美日韩精品网址| av视频免费观看在线观看| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 9热在线视频观看99| av欧美777| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 窝窝影院91人妻| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 久久这里只有精品19| 一级毛片精品| ponron亚洲| 国产成人精品在线电影| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 在线免费观看的www视频| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 中文字幕制服av| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 一区在线观看完整版| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 69av精品久久久久久| 免费在线观看日本一区| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 国产精品久久视频播放| 怎么达到女性高潮| 精品亚洲成国产av| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 黄片播放在线免费| 久久久久久久国产电影| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 成人精品一区二区免费| 午夜福利欧美成人| 视频区图区小说| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 成人免费观看视频高清| 在线播放国产精品三级| 精品电影一区二区在线| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 日韩欧美免费精品| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 91成人精品电影| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 欧美成人午夜精品| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 国产精品电影一区二区三区 | 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 怎么达到女性高潮| 成年动漫av网址| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产在视频线精品| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 国产精品成人在线| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 性少妇av在线| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 国产成人精品无人区| 国产男女内射视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| av天堂久久9| 一a级毛片在线观看| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 国产激情久久老熟女| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 久久久国产一区二区| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 国产成人精品无人区| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产精品成人在线| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 夫妻午夜视频| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 欧美日韩av久久| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 99国产精品一区二区三区| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 很黄的视频免费| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 精品福利永久在线观看| 看黄色毛片网站| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 亚洲综合色网址| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| а√天堂www在线а√下载 | 在线视频色国产色| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 午夜精品在线福利| 9热在线视频观看99| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 亚洲国产看品久久| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 黄色 视频免费看| 国产精华一区二区三区| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| cao死你这个sao货| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 777米奇影视久久| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费 | 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 视频区图区小说| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 午夜福利,免费看| xxx96com| 久热这里只有精品99| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 999精品在线视频| 制服诱惑二区| 不卡一级毛片| 国产色视频综合| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 久久久久国内视频| 国产视频一区二区在线看| a级毛片在线看网站| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 国产成人欧美| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 少妇的丰满在线观看| avwww免费| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 久久热在线av| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 高清在线国产一区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲av美国av| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| a级毛片在线看网站| 欧美日韩av久久| 久久99一区二区三区| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 午夜91福利影院| 久久中文字幕一级| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 色播在线永久视频| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 亚洲av电影在线进入| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 免费观看人在逋| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站 | 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 夜夜爽天天搞| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 欧美成人午夜精品| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 久久久久久久国产电影| av福利片在线| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| videos熟女内射| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 亚洲成人手机| 日韩欧美免费精品| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 久久亚洲真实| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区 | 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 精品久久久久久电影网| 久久久国产欧美日韩av|