• <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

    色在线成人网| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 一级毛片电影观看 | 最新中文字幕久久久久| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 日本成人三级电影网站| 日日撸夜夜添| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 日韩强制内射视频| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 久久久欧美国产精品| 午夜福利高清视频| 露出奶头的视频| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国产三级在线视频| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 91精品国产九色| 尾随美女入室| 黄片wwwwww| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 老司机福利观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 床上黄色一级片| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 欧美色视频一区免费| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 日本色播在线视频| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频 | 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 欧美激情在线99| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 一本久久中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 日本色播在线视频| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 十八禁网站免费在线| 亚洲四区av| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 22中文网久久字幕| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 久久草成人影院| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产精品,欧美在线| 久久久久国内视频| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 尾随美女入室| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 一级av片app| 国产探花极品一区二区| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 亚洲18禁久久av| 国产成人影院久久av| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 我要搜黄色片| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| www.色视频.com| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 精品久久久久久成人av| 在线国产一区二区在线| 91狼人影院| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 在线观看一区二区三区| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 床上黄色一级片| 日本免费a在线| 一夜夜www| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 一进一出抽搐动态| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 特级一级黄色大片| 悠悠久久av| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 亚洲最大成人中文| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 丝袜喷水一区| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 精品一区二区免费观看| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲最大成人av| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 亚洲内射少妇av| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 久久精品夜色国产| 一级av片app| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 小说图片视频综合网站| 色在线成人网| 十八禁网站免费在线| 欧美激情在线99| 一级黄片播放器| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 欧美+日韩+精品| 午夜福利在线在线| 国产成人91sexporn| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 老司机福利观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 欧美性感艳星| 日本一本二区三区精品| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 日韩强制内射视频| av视频在线观看入口| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 97在线视频观看| 国产真实乱freesex| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产真实乱freesex| av在线老鸭窝| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 热99在线观看视频| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 综合色av麻豆| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 亚洲在线观看片| 免费看a级黄色片| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 高清毛片免费看| 91久久精品电影网| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 22中文网久久字幕| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 高清毛片免费看| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 22中文网久久字幕| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 欧美3d第一页| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 日本黄大片高清| 少妇的逼好多水| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 22中文网久久字幕| 69人妻影院| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 久久久精品94久久精品| 一级黄片播放器| 尾随美女入室| 91av网一区二区| 亚洲av熟女| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 在线观看66精品国产| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 丝袜美腿在线中文| 91精品国产九色| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 日韩高清综合在线| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 久久久精品94久久精品| 如何舔出高潮| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 亚洲18禁久久av| 三级毛片av免费| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 成人国产麻豆网| 禁无遮挡网站| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 日本与韩国留学比较| 欧美成人a在线观看| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 午夜精品在线福利| 插逼视频在线观看| 一区二区三区免费毛片| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 悠悠久久av| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 1024手机看黄色片| 成人精品一区二区免费| 日本黄大片高清| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 日本五十路高清| 亚洲最大成人av| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 精品福利观看| 免费av毛片视频| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品 | 我的老师免费观看完整版| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 国产免费男女视频| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 成人三级黄色视频| videossex国产| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 一级av片app| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 午夜福利在线在线| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 亚洲最大成人av| 老司机福利观看| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 老司机影院成人| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 日本黄大片高清| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 亚洲综合色惰| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 在线播放国产精品三级| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| av在线蜜桃| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 级片在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| av中文乱码字幕在线| videossex国产| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验 | 99热网站在线观看| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 成人av在线播放网站| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 免费av毛片视频| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 亚洲av.av天堂| 国产精品永久免费网站| 日韩欧美三级三区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 亚洲内射少妇av| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 午夜久久久久精精品| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 极品教师在线视频| 久久这里只有精品中国| 老女人水多毛片| 亚州av有码| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 国产高清激情床上av| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| av国产免费在线观看| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 黄片wwwwww| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 午夜a级毛片| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 热99在线观看视频| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 99热精品在线国产| 综合色av麻豆| 日韩国内少妇激情av| av视频在线观看入口| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 嫩草影院入口| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 99热全是精品| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 在线看三级毛片| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| aaaaa片日本免费| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 精品日产1卡2卡| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 亚洲在线观看片| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 成人三级黄色视频| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 久久6这里有精品| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 在现免费观看毛片| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 日本a在线网址| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| www日本黄色视频网| 在线看三级毛片| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 一区福利在线观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| a级毛片a级免费在线| 赤兔流量卡办理| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 一级av片app| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 一本久久中文字幕| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 国产高清激情床上av| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 在线看三级毛片| 此物有八面人人有两片| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 午夜精品在线福利| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 一本久久中文字幕| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 夜夜爽天天搞| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 午夜a级毛片| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 69人妻影院| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 久久午夜福利片| .国产精品久久| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 三级经典国产精品| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 91狼人影院| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| a级毛片a级免费在线| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| av在线亚洲专区| 免费大片18禁| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 欧美激情在线99| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 春色校园在线视频观看| 韩国av在线不卡| 搡老岳熟女国产| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 免费观看人在逋| 在现免费观看毛片| 午夜影院日韩av| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 色综合站精品国产| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 老司机影院成人| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 色播亚洲综合网| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 亚洲不卡免费看| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 精品一区二区免费观看| 欧美日本视频| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 免费av毛片视频| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 国产 一区精品| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 成年av动漫网址| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 99热全是精品| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 搡老岳熟女国产| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频 | 99热这里只有精品一区| 九九热线精品视视频播放| av福利片在线观看| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 精品午夜福利在线看| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 草草在线视频免费看| 少妇的逼水好多| 久久久久九九精品影院| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| av卡一久久| 免费看a级黄色片| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 观看美女的网站| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 在线播放国产精品三级| 综合色丁香网| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 亚洲最大成人av| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 日本黄大片高清| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 在线播放国产精品三级| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 国产高清三级在线| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 最好的美女福利视频网| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看|