Cargando…

The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method

OBJECTIVES: Ileus following surgery can arise in different forms namely as paralytic ileus, adhesive small bowel obstruction or as anastomotic stenosis. The incidences of these different forms of ileus are not well known after abdominal birth defect surgery in infants. Therefore, this review aims to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eeftinck Schattenkerk, Laurens D., Musters, Gijsbert D., Nijssen, David J., de Jonge, Wouter J., de Vries, Ralph, van Heurn, L.W. Ernest, Derikx, Joep P.M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: De Gruyter 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35937853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iss-2020-0042
_version_ 1784749830560546816
author Eeftinck Schattenkerk, Laurens D.
Musters, Gijsbert D.
Nijssen, David J.
de Jonge, Wouter J.
de Vries, Ralph
van Heurn, L.W. Ernest
Derikx, Joep P.M.
author_facet Eeftinck Schattenkerk, Laurens D.
Musters, Gijsbert D.
Nijssen, David J.
de Jonge, Wouter J.
de Vries, Ralph
van Heurn, L.W. Ernest
Derikx, Joep P.M.
author_sort Eeftinck Schattenkerk, Laurens D.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Ileus following surgery can arise in different forms namely as paralytic ileus, adhesive small bowel obstruction or as anastomotic stenosis. The incidences of these different forms of ileus are not well known after abdominal birth defect surgery in infants. Therefore, this review aims to estimate the incidence in general between abdominal birth defects. CONTENT: Studies reporting on paralytic ileus, adhesive small bowel obstruction or anastomotic stenosis were considered eligible. PubMed and Embase were searched and risk of bias was assessed. Primary outcome was the incidence of complications. A meta-analysis was performed to pool the reported incidences in total and per birth defect separately. SUMMARY: This study represents a total of 11,617 patients described in 152 studies of which 86 (56%) had a follow-up of at least half a year. Pooled proportions were calculated as follows; paralytic ileus: 0.07 (95%-CI, 0.05–0.11; I (2)=71%, p≤0.01) ranging from 0.14 (95% CI: 0.08–0.23) in gastroschisis to 0.05 (95%-CI: 0.02–0.13) in omphalocele. Adhesive small bowel obstruction: 0.06 (95%-CI: 0.05–0.07; I (2)=74%, p≤0.01) ranging from 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06–0.19) in malrotation to 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02–0.06) in anorectal malformations. Anastomotic stenosis after a month 0.04 (95%-CI: 0.03–0.06; I (2)=59%, p=0.30) ranging from 0.08 (95% CI: 0.04–0.14) in gastroschisis to 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01–0.04) in duodenal obstruction. Anastomotic stenosis within a month 0.03 (95%-CI 0.01–0.10; I (2)=81%, p=0.02) was reviewed without separate analysis per birth defect. OUTLOOK: This review is the first to aggregate the known literature in order approximate the incidence of different forms of ileus for different abdominal birth defects. We showed these complications are common and the distribution varies between birth defects. Knowing which birth defects are most at risk can aid clinicians in taking prompt action, such as nasogastric tube placement, when an ileus is suspected. Future research should focus on the identification of risk factors and preventative measures. The incidences provided by this review can be used in those studies as a starting point for sample size calculations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9294340
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher De Gruyter
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92943402022-08-04 The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method Eeftinck Schattenkerk, Laurens D. Musters, Gijsbert D. Nijssen, David J. de Jonge, Wouter J. de Vries, Ralph van Heurn, L.W. Ernest Derikx, Joep P.M. Innov Surg Sci Review OBJECTIVES: Ileus following surgery can arise in different forms namely as paralytic ileus, adhesive small bowel obstruction or as anastomotic stenosis. The incidences of these different forms of ileus are not well known after abdominal birth defect surgery in infants. Therefore, this review aims to estimate the incidence in general between abdominal birth defects. CONTENT: Studies reporting on paralytic ileus, adhesive small bowel obstruction or anastomotic stenosis were considered eligible. PubMed and Embase were searched and risk of bias was assessed. Primary outcome was the incidence of complications. A meta-analysis was performed to pool the reported incidences in total and per birth defect separately. SUMMARY: This study represents a total of 11,617 patients described in 152 studies of which 86 (56%) had a follow-up of at least half a year. Pooled proportions were calculated as follows; paralytic ileus: 0.07 (95%-CI, 0.05–0.11; I (2)=71%, p≤0.01) ranging from 0.14 (95% CI: 0.08–0.23) in gastroschisis to 0.05 (95%-CI: 0.02–0.13) in omphalocele. Adhesive small bowel obstruction: 0.06 (95%-CI: 0.05–0.07; I (2)=74%, p≤0.01) ranging from 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06–0.19) in malrotation to 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02–0.06) in anorectal malformations. Anastomotic stenosis after a month 0.04 (95%-CI: 0.03–0.06; I (2)=59%, p=0.30) ranging from 0.08 (95% CI: 0.04–0.14) in gastroschisis to 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01–0.04) in duodenal obstruction. Anastomotic stenosis within a month 0.03 (95%-CI 0.01–0.10; I (2)=81%, p=0.02) was reviewed without separate analysis per birth defect. OUTLOOK: This review is the first to aggregate the known literature in order approximate the incidence of different forms of ileus for different abdominal birth defects. We showed these complications are common and the distribution varies between birth defects. Knowing which birth defects are most at risk can aid clinicians in taking prompt action, such as nasogastric tube placement, when an ileus is suspected. Future research should focus on the identification of risk factors and preventative measures. The incidences provided by this review can be used in those studies as a starting point for sample size calculations. De Gruyter 2021-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9294340/ /pubmed/35937853 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iss-2020-0042 Text en © 2021 Laurens D. Eeftinck Schattenkerk et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Review
Eeftinck Schattenkerk, Laurens D.
Musters, Gijsbert D.
Nijssen, David J.
de Jonge, Wouter J.
de Vries, Ralph
van Heurn, L.W. Ernest
Derikx, Joep P.M.
The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method
title The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method
title_full The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method
title_fullStr The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method
title_full_unstemmed The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method
title_short The incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method
title_sort incidence of different forms of ileus following surgery for abdominal birth defects in infants: a systematic review with a meta-analysis method
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35937853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iss-2020-0042
work_keys_str_mv AT eeftinckschattenkerklaurensd theincidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT mustersgijsbertd theincidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT nijssendavidj theincidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT dejongewouterj theincidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT devriesralph theincidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT vanheurnlwernest theincidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT derikxjoeppm theincidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT eeftinckschattenkerklaurensd incidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT mustersgijsbertd incidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT nijssendavidj incidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT dejongewouterj incidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT devriesralph incidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT vanheurnlwernest incidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod
AT derikxjoeppm incidenceofdifferentformsofileusfollowingsurgeryforabdominalbirthdefectsininfantsasystematicreviewwithametaanalysismethod