-
1.
The effect of diets delivered into the gastrointestinal tract on gut motility after colorectal surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Hogan, S, Steffens, D, Rangan, A, Solomon, M, Carey, S
European journal of clinical nutrition. 2019;(10):1331-1342
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Despite best practice guidelines, feeding methods after colorectal surgery vary due to the difficulties translating evidence into practice. The aim was to determine the effectiveness of diets delivered into the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) on gut motility following colorectal surgery. SUBJECTS/METHODS EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and PubMed were systematically searched. Randomised controlled trials investigating effectiveness of a diet on gut motility after colorectal surgeries were included. Outcomes included postoperative ileus, length of stay, mortality, nausea and vomiting. RESULTS A total of 756 potential studies were identified; of these, 10 trials reporting on 1237 unique patients were included. There is evidence that early feeding reduces time (days) to first flatus (mean difference (MD):-0.64; 95% CI:-0.84 to -0.44) and bowel movements (MD:-0.64; 95% CI:-1.01 to -0.26), when compared to traditional postoperative fasting. Introducing solids versus the progression of fluids to solids had no effect on time (days) to first flatus (MD:0.13; 95% CI:-1.99 to 1.74) or bowel movement (MD:0.20; 95% CI:-0.50 to 0.98). Complete nutrition compared to hypocaloric nutrition had no effect on time to first flatus (MD:-0.60; 95% CI:-1.66 to 0.46) or bowel movement (MD:-0.20; 95% CI:-1.59 to 1.19), whereas coffee and diet compared to water and diet significantly decreased time (days) to first bowel movement (MD:-0.60; 95% CI:-0.97 to -0.19) but had no effect on time to first flatus (MD:-0.20; 95% CI:-0.57 to 0.09). CONCLUSIONS Any form of early postoperative diet provided into the GIT early after colorectal surgery is likely to stimulate gut motility, resulting in earlier return of bowel function and shorter length of stay.
-
2.
Effect of postoperative coffee consumption on gastrointestinal function after abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Eamudomkarn, N, Kietpeerakool, C, Kaewrudee, S, Jampathong, N, Ngamjarus, C, Lumbiganon, P
Scientific reports. 2018;(1):17349
Abstract
Coffee is believed to prevent postoperative ileus. This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of coffee consumption in stimulating gastrointestinal function after abdominal surgery. A number of databases for randomized controlled trials comparing coffee consumption following abdominal surgery versus water drinking or no intervention were searched. Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias in included studies. Six trials involving 601 participants were included. All studies had high risk of performance bias. Three studies had an unclear risk of selection bias. Postoperative coffee consumption reduced time to first defecation (mean difference (MD), -9.98 hours; 95% CI, -16.97 to -2.99), time to first flatus (MD, -7.14 hours; 95% CI, -10.96 to -3.33), time to first bowel sound (MD, -4.17 hours; 95% CI, -7.88 to -0.47), time to tolerance of solid food (MD, -15.55 hours; 95% CI, -22.83 to -8.27), and length of hospital stay (MD, -0.74 days; 95% CI, -1.14 to -0.33). Benefits increased with increasing complexity of the procedure. None of the included studies reported adverse events associated with coffee consumption. Postoperative coffee consumption is effective and safe for enhancing the recovery of gastrointestinal function after abdominal surgery.
-
3.
Chewing gum for intestinal function recovery after caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wen, Z, Shen, M, Wu, C, Ding, J, Mei, B
BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2017;(1):105
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gum chewing has been reported to enhance the intestinal function recovery after caesarean section, current perspectives and practice guidelines vary widely on the use of gum chewing, more studies on the role of gum chewing after caesarean section are needed. METHODS We performed a comprehensive, systematic meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of gum chewing after caesarean section. Studies were identified by searching EMBASE et al database (until June 30, 2016). Summary odd ratios or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome with fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS Ten RCTs with a total of 1659 women were included in our meta-analysis. Gum chewing provided significant benefits in reducing the time to first passage of flatus, first defecation, first bowel sound, first bowel movement and the length of hospital stay, but not in the time to first feeling of hunger. CONCLUSIONS Gun chewing hastens the intestinal function recovery after caesarean section and offers a safe and inexpensive option. High-quality and larger-scale RCTs are still warranted to clarify the role of gum chewing in intestinal function recovery after caesarean section.
-
4.
Chewing gum for enhancing early recovery of bowel function after caesarean section.
Pereira Gomes Morais, E, Riera, R, Porfírio, GJ, Macedo, CR, Sarmento Vasconcelos, V, de Souza Pedrosa, A, Torloni, MR
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(10):CD011562
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Caesarean sections (CS) are the most frequent major surgery in the world. A transient impairment of bowel motility is expected after CS. Although this usually resolves spontaneously within a few days, it can cause considerable discomfort, require symptomatic medication and delay hospital discharge, thus increasing costs. Chewing gum in the immediate postoperative period is a simple intervention that may be effective in enhancing recovery of bowel function in other types of abdominal surgeries. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of chewing gum to reduce the duration of postoperative ileus and to enhance postoperative recovery after a CS. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 June 2016), LILACs (20 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 June 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 June 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials comparing chewing gum versus usual care, for women in the first 24 hours after a CS. We included studies published in abstract form only.Quasi-randomised, cross-over or cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias following standard Cochrane methods. We present dichotomous outcome results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We pooled the results of similar studies using a random-effects model in case of important heterogeneity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included 17 randomised trials (3149 participants) conducted in nine different countries. Seven studies (1325 women) recruited exclusively women undergoing elective CS and five studies (833 women) only included women having a primary CS. Ten studies (1731 women) used conventional feeding protocols (nil by mouth until the return of intestinal function). The gum-chewing regimen varied among studies, in relation to its initiation (immediately after CS, up to 12 hours later), duration of each session (from 15 to 60 minutes) and number of sessions per day (three to more than six). All the studies were classified as having a high risk of bias due to the nature of the intervention, women could not be blinded and most of the outcomes were self-reported.Primary outcomes of this review: for the women that chewed gum, the time to passage of first flatus was seven hours shorter than those women in the 'usual care' control group (MD -7.09 hours, 95% CI -9.27 to -4.91 hours; 2399 women; 13 studies; random-effects Tau² = 14.63, I² = 95%, very low-quality evidence). This effect was consistent in all subgroup analyses (primary and repeat CS, time spent chewing gum per day, early and conventional feeding protocols, elective and non-elective CS and time after CS when gum-chewing was initiated). The rate of ileus was on average over 60% lower in the chewing-gum group compared to the control (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80; 1139 participants; four studies; I² = 39%, low-quality evidence). Tolerance to gum-chewing appeared to be high. Three women in one study complained about the chewing gum (but no further information was provided) and none of the studies reported adverse effects (eight studies, 925 women, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomes of this review: the time to passage of faeces occurred on average nine hours earlier in the intervention group (MD -9.22 hours, 95% CI -11.49 to -6.95 hours; 2016 participants; 11 studies; random-effects Tau² = 12.53, I² = 93%, very low-quality evidence). The average duration of hospital stay was shorter in the intervention compared to the control group (MD -0.36 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.18 days; 1489 participants; seven studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.04, I² = 92%). The first intestinal sounds were heard earlier in the intervention than in the control group (MD -4.56 hours, 95% CI -6.18 to -2.93 hours; 1729 participants; nine studies; random-effects Tau² = 5.41, I² = 96%). None of the studies assessed women's satisfaction in relation to having to chew gum. The need for analgesia or antiemetic agents did not differ between the intervention and control groups (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.13; 726 participants; three studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.79, I² = 69%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review found 17 randomised controlled trials (involving 3149 women). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for time to first passage of flatus and of faeces and for adverse effects/intolerance to gum chewing because of the high risk of bias of the studies (due to lack of blinding and self-report). For time to first flatus and faeces, we downgraded the quality of the evidence further because of the high heterogeneity in these meta-analyses and the potential for publication bias based on the visual inspection of the funnel plots. The quality of the evidence for adverse effects/tolerance to gum chewing and for ileus was downgraded because of the small number of events. The quality of the evidence for ileus was further downgraded due to the unclear risk of bias for the assessors evaluating this outcome.The available evidence suggests that gum chewing in the immediate postoperative period after a CS is a well tolerated intervention that enhances early recovery of bowel function. However the overall quality of the evidence is very low to low.Further research is necessary to establish the optimal regimen of gum-chewing (initiation, number and duration of sessions per day) to enhance bowel function recovery and to assess potential adverse effects of and women's satisfaction with this intervention. New studies also need to assess the compliance of the participants to the recommended gum-chewing instructions. Future large, well designed and conducted studies, with better methodological and reporting quality, will help to inform future updates of this review and enhance the body of evidence for this intervention.
-
5.
Interventions That Affect Gastrointestinal Motility in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials.
Asrani, VM, Yoon, HD, Megill, RD, Windsor, JA, Petrov, MS
Medicine. 2016;(5):e2463
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility is a common complication in acute, critically ill, postoperative, and chronic patients that may lead to impaired nutrient delivery, poor clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to treat GI dysmotility were investigated in dozens of clinical studies. However, they often yielded conflicting results, at least in part, because various (nonstandardized) definitions of GI dysmotility were used and methodological quality of studies was poor. While a universally accepted definition of GI dysmotility is yet to be developed, a systematic analysis of data derived from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials may provide robust data on absolute and relative effectiveness of various interventions as the study outcome (GI motility) was assessed in the least biased manner.To systematically review data from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials to determine and compare the effectiveness of interventions that affect GI motility.Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) were searched. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The summary estimates were reported as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).A total of 38 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 2371 patients were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. These studies investigated a total of 20 different interventions, of which 6 interventions were meta-analyzed. Of them, the use of dopamine receptor antagonists (MD, -8.99; 95% CI, -17.72 to -0.27; P = 0.04) and macrolides (MD, -26.04; 95% CI, -51.25 to -0.82; P = 0.04) significantly improved GI motility compared with the placebo group. The use of botulism toxin significantly impaired GI motility compared with the placebo group (MD, 5.31; 95% CI, -0.04 to 10.67; P = 0.05). Other interventions (dietary factors, probiotics, hormones) did not affect GI motility.Based on the best available data and taking into account the safety profile of each class of intervention, dopamine receptor antagonists and macrolides significantly improve GI motility and are medications of choice in treating GI dysmotility.
-
6.
Meta-analysis of the effect of goal-directed therapy on bowel function after abdominal surgery.
Gómez-Izquierdo, JC, Feldman, LS, Carli, F, Baldini, G
The British journal of surgery. 2015;(6):577-89
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intraoperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) was introduced to titrate intravenous fluids, with or without inotropic drugs, based on objective measures of hypovolaemia and cardiac output measurements to improve organ perfusion. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of GDT on the recovery of bowel function after abdominal surgery. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched for randomized clinical trials and cohort studies, from January 1989 to June 2013, that compared patients who did, or did not, receive intraoperative GDT, and reported outcomes on the recovery of bowel function. Time to first flatus and first bowel motion, time to tolerate oral diet, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and primary postoperative ileus were included. RESULTS Thirteen trials with 1399 patients were included in the analysis. GDT shortened the time to the first bowel motion (weighted mean difference (WMD -0·67, 95 per cent c.i. -1·23 to -0·11; P = 0·020) and time to tolerate oral intake (WMD -0·95, -1·81 to -0·10; P = 0·030), and reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (risk difference -0·15, -0·26 to -0·03; P = 0·010). When only high-quality studies were included, GDT reduced only the time to tolerate oral intake (WMD -1·18, -2·03 to -0·33; P = 0·006). GDT was more effective outside enhanced recovery programmes and in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. CONCLUSION GDT facilitated the recovery of bowel function, particularly in patients not treated within enhanced recovery programmes and in those undergoing colorectal operations.
-
7.
Chewing gum for postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function.
Short, V, Herbert, G, Perry, R, Atkinson, C, Ness, AR, Penfold, C, Thomas, S, Andersen, HK, Lewis, SJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(2):CD006506
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ileus commonly occurs after abdominal surgery, and is associated with complications and increased length of hospital stay (LOHS). Onset of ileus is considered to be multifactorial, and a variety of preventative methods have been investigated. Chewing gum (CG) is hypothesised to reduce postoperative ileus by stimulating early recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) function, through cephalo-vagal stimulation. There is no comprehensive review of this intervention in abdominal surgery. OBJECTIVES To examine whether chewing gum after surgery hastens the return of gastrointestinal function. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and ISI Web of Science (June 2014). We hand-searched reference lists of identified studies and previous reviews and systematic reviews, and contacted CG companies to ask for information on any studies using their products. We identified proposed and ongoing studies from clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and metaRegister of Controlled Trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used postoperative CG as an intervention compared to a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently collected data and assessed study quality using an adapted Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed overall quality of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Studies were split into subgroups: colorectal surgery (CRS), caesarean section (CS) and other surgery (OS). We assessed the effect of CG on time to first flatus (TFF), time to bowel movement (TBM), LOHS and time to bowel sounds (TBS) through meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We investigated the influence of study quality, reviewers' methodological estimations and use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes using sensitivity analyses. We used meta-regression to explore if surgical site or ROB scores predicted the extent of the effect estimate of the intervention on continuous outcomes. We reported frequency of complications, and descriptions of tolerability of gum and cost. MAIN RESULTS We identified 81 studies that recruited 9072 participants for inclusion in our review. We categorised many studies at high or unclear risk of the bias' assessed. There was statistical evidence that use of CG reduced TFF [overall reduction of 10.4 hours (95% CI: -11.9, -8.9): 12.5 hours (95% CI: -17.2, -7.8) in CRS, 7.9 hours (95% CI: -10.0, -5.8) in CS, 10.6 hours (95% CI: -12.7, -8.5) in OS]. There was also statistical evidence that use of CG reduced TBM [overall reduction of 12.7 hours (95% CI: -14.5, -10.9): 18.1 hours (95% CI: -25.3, -10.9) in CRS, 9.1 hours (95% CI: -11.4, -6.7) in CS, 12.3 hours (95% CI: -14.9, -9.7) in OS]. There was statistical evidence that use of CG slightly reduced LOHS [overall reduction of 0.7 days (95% CI: -0.8, -0.5): 1.0 days in CRS (95% CI: -1.6, -0.4), 0.2 days (95% CI: -0.3, -0.1) in CS, 0.8 days (95% CI: -1.1, -0.5) in OS]. There was statistical evidence that use of CG slightly reduced TBS [overall reduction of 5.0 hours (95% CI: -6.4, -3.7): 3.21 hours (95% CI: -7.0, 0.6) in CRS, 4.4 hours (95% CI: -5.9, -2.8) in CS, 6.3 hours (95% CI: -8.7, -3.8) in OS]. Effect sizes were largest in CRS and smallest in CS. There was statistical evidence of heterogeneity in all analyses other than TBS in CRS.There was little difference in mortality, infection risk and readmission rate between the groups. Some studies reported reduced nausea and vomiting and other complications in the intervention group. CG was generally well-tolerated by participants. There was little difference in cost between the groups in the two studies reporting this outcome.Sensitivity analyses by quality of studies and robustness of review estimates revealed no clinically important differences in effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis of ERAS studies showed a smaller effect size on TFF, larger effect size on TBM, and no difference between groups for LOHS.Meta-regression analyses indicated that surgical site is associated with the extent of the effect size on LOHS (all surgical subgroups), and TFF and TBM (CS and CRS subgroups only). There was no evidence that ROB score predicted the extent of the effect size on any outcome. Neither variable explained the identified heterogeneity between studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review identified some evidence for the benefit of postoperative CG in improving recovery of GI function. However, the research to date has primarily focussed on CS and CRS, and largely consisted of small, poor quality trials. Many components of the ERAS programme also target ileus, therefore the benefit of CG alongside ERAS may be reduced, as we observed in this review. Therefore larger, better quality RCTS in an ERAS setting in wider surgical disciplines would be needed to improve the evidence base for use of CG after surgery.
-
8.
Should bowel preparation, antifoaming agents, or prokinetics be used before video capsule endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Kotwal, VS, Attar, BM, Gupta, S, Agarwal, R
European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology. 2014;(2):137-45
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The ideal bowel preparation regime before small bowel video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is not known. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effect of purgatives, antifoaming agents, and prokinetics on the outcomes associated with VCE. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed literature searches in MEDLINE and Cochrane Library and included randomized-controlled trials studying the effect of purgatives, antifoaming agents, and prokinetics in patients undergoing VCE. Our outcomes of interest were visualization quality, diagnostic yield, and completion rate. Meta-analyses were carried out using the RevMan software and heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. RESULTS Fifteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. As compared with no bowel preparation, bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) led to adequate visualization in a significantly higher number of patients undergoing VCE [odds ratio (OR) 3.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70-5.75]. Both PEG and sodium phosphate significantly improved the diagnostic yield (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.16-2.42 and OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.18-2.64, respectively) but did not affect the completion rate. All studies with simethicone showed significantly improved visualization quality with its use as compared with overnight fasting or purgatives alone. Prokinetics did not significantly improve the completion rate of VCE. CONCLUSION On the basis of the data available, a combination of PEG and simethicone appears to be the best approach for small bowel preparation before VCE. However, large multicenter randomized-controlled trials are needed to validate this recommendation and to evaluate the ideal dose of PEG and timing of bowel preparation before VCE. Prokinetics administered before VCE do not improve the completion rate and should not be used.