Cargando…

Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: There were more than 1 million new cases of stomach cancer concerning oesophageal cancer, there were more than 600,000 new cases of oesophageal cancer in 2020. After a successful resection in these cases, the role of early oral feeding (EOF) was questionable, due to the possibility of fa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sindler, Dóra Lili, Mátrai, Péter, Szakó, Lajos, Berki, Dávid, Berke, Gergő, Csontos, Armand, Papp, Csenge, Hegyi, Péter, Papp, András
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10248085/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37304183
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1092303
_version_ 1785055295414730752
author Sindler, Dóra Lili
Mátrai, Péter
Szakó, Lajos
Berki, Dávid
Berke, Gergő
Csontos, Armand
Papp, Csenge
Hegyi, Péter
Papp, András
author_facet Sindler, Dóra Lili
Mátrai, Péter
Szakó, Lajos
Berki, Dávid
Berke, Gergő
Csontos, Armand
Papp, Csenge
Hegyi, Péter
Papp, András
author_sort Sindler, Dóra Lili
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There were more than 1 million new cases of stomach cancer concerning oesophageal cancer, there were more than 600,000 new cases of oesophageal cancer in 2020. After a successful resection in these cases, the role of early oral feeding (EOF) was questionable, due to the possibility of fatal anastomosis leakage. It is still debated whether EOF is more advantageous compared to late oral feeding. Our study aimed to compare the effect of early postoperative oral feeding and late oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal resections due to malignancy. METHODS: Two authors performed an extensive search and selection of articles independently to identify randomized control trials (RCT) of the question of interest. Statistical analyses were performed including mean difference, odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, statistical heterogeneity, and statistical publication bias, to identify potential significant differences. The Risk of Bias and the quality of evidence were estimated. RESULTS: We identified 6 relevant RCTs, which included 703 patients. The appearance of the first gas (MD = −1.16; p = 0.009), first defecation (MD = −0.91; p < 0.001), and the length of hospitalization (MD = −1.92; p = 0.008) favored the EOF group. Numerous binary outcomes were defined, but significant difference was not verified in the case of anastomosis insufficiency (p = 0.98), pneumonia (p = 0.88), wound infection (p = 0.48), bleeding (p = 0.52), rehospitalization (p = 0.23), rehospitalization to the intensive care unit (ICU) (p = 0.46), gastrointestinal paresis (p = 0.66), ascites (p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Early postoperative oral feeding, compared to late oral feeding has no risk of several possible postoperative morbidities after upper GI surgeries, but has several advantageous effects on a patient's recovery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: identifier, CRD 42022302594.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10248085
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102480852023-06-09 Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis Sindler, Dóra Lili Mátrai, Péter Szakó, Lajos Berki, Dávid Berke, Gergő Csontos, Armand Papp, Csenge Hegyi, Péter Papp, András Front Surg Surgery BACKGROUND: There were more than 1 million new cases of stomach cancer concerning oesophageal cancer, there were more than 600,000 new cases of oesophageal cancer in 2020. After a successful resection in these cases, the role of early oral feeding (EOF) was questionable, due to the possibility of fatal anastomosis leakage. It is still debated whether EOF is more advantageous compared to late oral feeding. Our study aimed to compare the effect of early postoperative oral feeding and late oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal resections due to malignancy. METHODS: Two authors performed an extensive search and selection of articles independently to identify randomized control trials (RCT) of the question of interest. Statistical analyses were performed including mean difference, odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, statistical heterogeneity, and statistical publication bias, to identify potential significant differences. The Risk of Bias and the quality of evidence were estimated. RESULTS: We identified 6 relevant RCTs, which included 703 patients. The appearance of the first gas (MD = −1.16; p = 0.009), first defecation (MD = −0.91; p < 0.001), and the length of hospitalization (MD = −1.92; p = 0.008) favored the EOF group. Numerous binary outcomes were defined, but significant difference was not verified in the case of anastomosis insufficiency (p = 0.98), pneumonia (p = 0.88), wound infection (p = 0.48), bleeding (p = 0.52), rehospitalization (p = 0.23), rehospitalization to the intensive care unit (ICU) (p = 0.46), gastrointestinal paresis (p = 0.66), ascites (p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Early postoperative oral feeding, compared to late oral feeding has no risk of several possible postoperative morbidities after upper GI surgeries, but has several advantageous effects on a patient's recovery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: identifier, CRD 42022302594. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10248085/ /pubmed/37304183 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1092303 Text en © 2023 Sindler, Mátrai, Szakó, Berki, Berke, Csontos, Papp, Hegyi and Papp. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Sindler, Dóra Lili
Mátrai, Péter
Szakó, Lajos
Berki, Dávid
Berke, Gergő
Csontos, Armand
Papp, Csenge
Hegyi, Péter
Papp, András
Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis
title Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis
title_full Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis
title_short Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis
title_sort faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper gi tumor resections: a meta-analysis
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10248085/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37304183
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1092303
work_keys_str_mv AT sindlerdoralili fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT matraipeter fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT szakolajos fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT berkidavid fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT berkegergo fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT csontosarmand fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT pappcsenge fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT hegyipeter fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis
AT pappandras fasterrecoveryandbowelmovementafterearlyoralfeedingcomparedtolateoralfeedingafteruppergitumorresectionsametaanalysis