1.
Effect of chewing gum on gastrointestinal function after gynecological surgery: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Xu, C, Peng, J, Liu, S, Qi, DY
The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research. 2018;(5):936-943
Abstract
AIM: Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCT) reported the effect of chewing gum on gastrointestinal function after gynecological surgery; however, these results are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the effect of chewing gum on postoperative gastrointestinal function and complications in women undergoing gynecological surgery. METHODS Pumbed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Wanfang databases, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and http://clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inceptions to April 30, 2017. Studies including chewing gum's impact on postoperative gastrointestinal function or complications were evaluated. Two authors individually performed data extraction from 10 RCT. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were used. RESULTS Contrasting the group of standard postoperative care, the gum chewing group had a lower duration from the end of operation to first aerofluxus (WMD -7.55, 95%CI: -10.99 to -4.12); first intestinal sounds (WMD -6.20, 95%CI: -8.14 to -4.27); first defecation (WMD -12.24, 95%CI: -18.47 to -6.01); hospitalization duration (WMD -0.72. 95%CI -1.19 to -0.25); and lower incidence of nausea (OR 0.45, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.69), vomiting (OR 0.38, 95%CI: 0.22 to 0.68) and postoperative ileus (OR 0.25, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.44). CONCLUSION Chewing gum is an effective measure to ameliorate gastrointestinal function and decrease complications after gynecological surgery.
2.
Goal-directed fluid therapy versus conventional fluid therapy in colorectal surgery: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Xu, C, Peng, J, Liu, S, Huang, Y, Guo, X, Xiao, H, Qi, D
International journal of surgery (London, England). 2018;:264-273
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) versus conventional fluid therapy (CFT) in colorectal surgery on patients' postoperative outcome and to detect whether the results differ between studies with the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol and those without, between studies using different devices for GDFT, or between different surgical approaches (laparoscopy or laparotomy). METHODS The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Wanfang Data and ClinicalTrials.com were searched for studies from January,1990 to February, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing both two abovementioned fluid therapy protocols in colorectal surgery were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), complication rate, ICU admission and gastrointestinal indicators. RESULTS Eleven studies were included, including a total of 1281 patients: the GDFT group included 624 patients and the control group included 657 patients. No significant differences were found between groups in 30-day mortality (relative risk, RR 0.86,0.28 to 2.63, P = 0.79), LOS (weighted mean difference, WMD 0.22,-0.1 to 0.55, P = 0.18), and ICU admission (RR 0.42, 0.17 to 1.04, P = 0.06). However, the GDFT group had a lower complication rate (RR 0.84,0.71 to 0.99, P = 0.04). In subgroup analyses, time to first flatus and time to tolerate an oral diet were shorter in GDFT group than the control group in studies who did not use the ERAS protocol. No publication bias was identified according to Begg's test. CONCLUSION Compared with conventional fluid therapy, GDFT may not improve patients' postoperative outcome in colorectal surgery. However, the improvement of gastrointestinal function associated with GDFT over conventional fluid therapy was significant in the surgeries that did not use the ERAS protocol.