A meta-analysis on the effect of sham feeding following colectomy: should gum chewing be included in enhanced recovery after surgery protocols?

Effects of Postoperative Gum Chewing on Recovery of Gastrointestinal Function Following Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Chewing gum, considered a form of sham feeding, has been shown to improve intestinal motor and secretory function in various types of abdominal surgery. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the effects of postoperative gum chewing on the recovery of gastrointestinal function after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Embase, and a reference list of relevant studies from the inception to 11 March 2024, comparing postoperative gum chewing versus no gum chewing following laparoscopic gynecologic surgery regardless of indications and setting without language restriction. The primary outcome was the time to the presence of bowel sounds and the time to the first passage of flatus. Cochrane's risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. Results: Nine RCTs with a total of 1011 patients were included. Overall, three studies were categorized as having a low risk of bias, three had some concerns, and three exhibited a high risk of bias. The time to the presence of bowel sounds (mean difference [MD] -2.66 h, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.68 to -1.64, p < 0.00001) and time to the first passage of flatus (MD -4.20 h, 95% CI -5.79 to -2.61, p < 0.00001) was significantly shorter in the gum-chewing group. There was no statistical difference between the two groups with regard to the time to the first defecation (MD -6.52 h, 95% CI -15.70 to 2.66, p = 0.16), time to the first postoperative mobilization (MD 24.05 min, 95% CI -38.16 to 86.26, p = 0.45), postoperative ileus (MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.19, p = 0.17), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.05 day, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.04, p = 0.28). Conclusions: Gum chewing following laparoscopic gynecologic surgery appears to promote the recovery of gastrointestinal function, as evidenced by a reduced time to the presence of bowel sounds and the first passage of flatus.

Strategies to reduce ileus after colorectal surgery: A qualitative umbrella review of the collective evidence

BACKGROUND

Various strategies were proposed to reduce postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery. This umbrella review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of current evidence on measures to reduce the incidence and severity of postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus to identify systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of interventions used to prevent postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery. Data on study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were summarized in a narrative manner.

RESULTS

A total of 26 systematic reviews incorporating various strategies like early oral feeding, gum chewing, coffee consumption, medications, and acupuncture were included. Early oral feeding reduced postoperative ileus and accelerated bowel function return. The most assessed intervention was chewing gum, which was associated with a median reduction of postoperative ileus by 45% (range, 11%-59%) and shortening of the time to first flatus and time to defecation by a median of 11.9 and 17.7 hours, respectively. Coffee intake showed inconsistent results, with a median shortening of time to flatus and time to defecation by 1.32 and 14.45 hours, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Early oral feeding, chewing gum, and alvimopan were the most commonly assessed and effective strategies for reducing postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery. Medications used to reduce postoperative ileus included alvimopan, intravenous lidocaine, dexamethasone, probiotics, and oral antibiotics. Intravenous dexamethasone and lidocaine and oral probiotics helped hasten bowel function return. Acupuncture positively impacted the recovery of bowel function.

The Effect of Postoperative Gum Chewing on Gastrointestinal Function Following Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery. A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of postoperative gum chewing on gastrointestinal function in women following laparoscopic gynecological surgery for benign indications.

DATA SOURCES

We screened 5 major databases (Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov) from inception till February 2023.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the postoperative bowel function between patients who chewed and patients who did not chew gum postoperatively after laparoscopic gynecological procedures for benign indications.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data from 5 studies on 670 patients were extracted and analyzed by 3 independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4 software (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020), with mean differences (MDs), pooled risk ratios, and random-effects model. Postoperative gum chewing significantly reduced the time to first bowel sounds and the time to first passage of flatus (MD -2.58 hours 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.12 to -1.04 p = .001 and MD -3.97 hours 95% CI -6.26 to -1.68 p <.001, respectively). The time to first defecation, the time to first postoperative patients' mobilization, the length of hospital stay, and the risk of postoperative bowel obstruction showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. When subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of the laparoscopic procedure, it failed to reveal a positive impact of postoperative gum chewing in both the times to first passage of flatus and first defecation following laparoscopic hysterectomies (MD -5.35 hours 95% CI -10.93 to 0.23 p = .06 and MD -15.93 hours 95% CI -40.13 to 8.28 p = .20, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present meta-analysis support that postoperative gum chewing following laparoscopic gynecological procedures seems to have a positive effect on the early mobilization of the gastrointestinal tract. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of the included randomized controlled clinical trials.

Effects of Gum Chewing on Recovery From Postoperative Ileus: A Randomized Clinical Trail

BACKGROUND

Sham feeding with products such as chewing gum has been theorized to decrease the incidence and time to resolution of postoperative ileus. The conflicting findings in the literature on this subject are because in part of the use of mixed study populations, which has led to difficulties in assessing the value of sham feeding in ameliorating this condition.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of postsurgical gum chewing in restoring normal bowel movement in patients with colorectal cancer who had undergone abdominal surgery for colon resection.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was used to examine the time to first postoperative flatus and defecation. The intervention group ( n = 30) received xylitol chewing gum on the first day after colon resection, one piece of gum for 15 minutes, 3 times daily, until the time to first flatus and defecation. Both the intervention and control groups ( n = 30) received standard postoperative care and were encouraged to walk as soon as possible after surgery. The time to first flatus was reported by patients.

RESULTS

The time to first flatus and defecation in the intervention group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (39.13 ± 15.66 vs. 52.92 ± 21.97 hours and 54.55 ± 18.90 vs. 77.98 ± 34.59 hours, respectively). However, after controlling for age and surgical duration, only time to first flatus was significantly shorter in the intervention group. Significantly positive correlations were found between time to first flatus and time to first defecation in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this study, gum chewing was shown to have a positive effect on the time to first postoperative flatus and defecation. This inexpensive and noninvasive intervention may be recommended to decrease the time to resolution of postsurgical ileus in middle-aged and older patients who have undergone open abdominal surgery for colorectal resection.

Evaluation of clinical prognostic variables on short-term outcome for colorectal cancer surgery: An overview and minimum dataset

INTRODUCTION

Surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with post-operative morbidity and mortality. Multiple systematic reviews have reported on individual factors affecting short-term outcome following surgical resection. This umbrella review aims to synthesize the available evidence on host and other factors associated with short-term post-operative complications.

METHODS

A comprehensive search identified systematic reviews reporting on short-term outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery using PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science from inception to 8th September 2020. All reported clinicopathological variables were extracted from published systematic reviews.

RESULTS

The present overview identified multiple validated factors affecting short-term outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection. In particular, factors consistently associated with post-operative outcome differed with the type of complication; infective, non-infective or mortality. A minimum dataset was identified for future studies and included pre-operative age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, body composition (sarcopenia, visceral obesity) and functional status (ASA, frailty). A recommended dataset included antibiotic prophylaxis, iron therapy, blood transfusion, erythropoietin, steroid use, enhance recovery programme and finally potential dataset included measures of the systemic inflammatory response CONCLUSION: A minimum dataset of mandatory, recommended, and potential baseline variables to be included in studies of patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection is proposed. This will maximise the benefit of such study datasets.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol Accelerates Recovery of Lumbar Disc Herniation among Elderly Patients Undergoing Discectomy via Promoting Gastrointestinal Function

This study aimed to analyze the effect of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol on the recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients with lumbar disc herniation after discectomy. A total of 179 patients with lumbar disc herniation were randomly divided into the ERAS and non-ERAS groups. The non-ERAS group received routine nursing, and the ERAS group received ERAS strategy. The two groups were compared for general recovery indicators such as postoperative hemoglobin and prealbumin, satisfaction, and length of hospital stay. Gastrointestinal function was also evaluated, such as postoperative feeding time, intestinal chirping recovery time, intestinal exhaust gas recovery time, and complications such as ileus, nausea, and vomiting. The satisfaction of patients in the ERAS group (86.15 ± 2.43) was significantly higher than that in the non-ERAS group (77.19 ± 3.32), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The average time of eating in the ERAS group was 2.27 h after surgery. In addition, the amount of eating in the ERAS group was significantly better than that in the non-ERAS group, and the difference was statistically significant. In the ERAS group, intestinal chirping recovery time recovered to normal time, and exhaust recovery time and average defecation time were significantly shorter than those in the non-ERAS group. In the ERAS group, the average amount of hemoglobin and prealbumin decreased 3 days after operation, which was significantly lower than that in the non-ERAS group. To sum up, ERAS has an evident effect on the recovery of gastrointestinal function after discectomy of disc herniation, which can promote the recovery of patients.

Dissecting the Perioperative Care Bundle

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are comprehensive perioperative care pathways designed to mitigate the physiologic stressors associated with surgery and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes and lead to health care cost savings. Although individual components may differ, ERAS protocols are typically organized as multimodal care "bundles" that, when followed closely and in their entirety, are meant to generate amplified cumulative benefits. This manuscript examines some of the critical components, describes some areas where the science is weak (but dogma may be strong), and provides some of the evidence or lack thereof behind components of a standard ERAS protocol.

[Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises]

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concepts or fast-track are supposed to accelerate recovery after surgery, reduce postoperative complications and shorten the hospital stay when compared to traditional perioperative treatment.

METHODS

Electronic search of the PubMed database to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SR) comparing ERAS and traditional treatment.

RESULTS

The presented SR investigated 70 randomized controlled studies (RCT) with 12,986 patients and 93 non-RCT (24,335 patients) concerning abdominal, thoracic and vascular as well as orthopedic surgery. The complication rates were decreased under ERAS following colorectal esophageal, liver and pulmonary resections as well as after implantation of hip endoprostheses. Pulmonary complications were reduced after ERAS esophageal, gastric and pulmonary resections. The first bowel movements occurred earlier after ERAS colorectal resections and delayed gastric emptying was less often observed after ERAS pancreatic resection. Following ERAS fast-track esophageal resection, anastomotic leakage was diagnosed less often as well as surgical complications after ERAS pulmonary resection. The ERAS in all studies concerning orthopedic surgery and trials investigating implantation of a hip endoprosthesis or knee endoprosthesis reduced the risk for postoperative blood transfusions. Regardless of the type of surgery, ERAS shortened hospital stay without increasing readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Numerous clinical trials have confirmed that ERAS reduces postoperative morbidity, shortens hospital stay and accelerates recovery without increasing readmission rates following most surgical operations.

Postoperative Ileus and Postoperative Gastrointestinal Tract Dysfunction: Pathogenic Mechanisms and Novel Treatment Strategies Beyond Colorectal Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols

Postoperative ileus (POI) and postoperative gastrointestinal tract dysfunction (POGD) are well-known complications affecting patients undergoing intestinal surgery. GI symptoms include nausea, vomiting, pain, abdominal distention, bloating, and constipation. These iatrogenic disorders are associated with extended hospitalizations, increased morbidity, and health care costs into the billions and current therapeutic strategies are limited. This is a narrative review focused on recent concepts in the pathogenesis of POI and POGD, pipeline drugs or approaches to treatment. Mechanisms, cellular targets and pathways implicated in the pathogenesis include gut surgical manipulation and surgical trauma, neuroinflammation, reactive enteric glia, macrophages, mast cells, monocytes, neutrophils and ICC's. The precise interactions between immune, inflammatory, neural and glial cells are not well understood. Reactive enteric glial cells are an emerging therapeutic target that is under intense investigation for enteric neuropathies, GI dysmotility and POI. Our review emphasizes current therapeutic strategies, starting with the implementation of colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery protocols to protect against POI and POGD. However, despite colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery, it remains a significant medical problem and burden on the healthcare system. Over 100 pipeline drugs or treatments are listed in Clin.Trials.gov. These include 5HT4R agonists (Prucalopride and TAK 954), vagus nerve stimulation of the ENS-macrophage nAChR cholinergic pathway, acupuncture, herbal medications, peripheral acting opioid antagonists (Alvimopen, Methlnaltexone, Naldemedine), anti-bloating/flatulence drugs (Simethiocone), a ghreline prokinetic agonist (Ulimovelin), drinking coffee, and nicotine chewing gum. A better understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms for short and long-term outcomes is necessary before we can develop better prophylactic and treatment strategies.

Can coffee or chewing gum decrease transit times in Colon capsule endoscopy? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A high rate of complete colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations is required for a more widespread use of CCE. The objective of this study was to assess if coffee or chewing gum can increase excretion of the colon capsule within battery life time (excretion rate).

METHODS

One hundred eighty six screening participants with a positive immunochemical fecal occult blood test were included in this single-centre randomized controlled trial with blinding of the investigators to the randomization. Participants received instant coffee, chewing gum or nothing in addition to the standard bowel preparation.

RESULTS

The intention was to include 57 participants in the coffee group, 61 in the chewing gum group and 60 in the control group, on 8 participants data were missing. A total of 165 participants were included in a per protocol analysis. Exclusion was due to not receiving the allocated intervention (8 coffee, 4 chewing gum) and technical failure of the capsule (1 coffee). The excretion rate was 58% in the coffee group (n = 48), 63% in the chewing gum group (n = 57) and 55% in the control group (n = 60, p > 0.2). Transit times were similar in all groups. The excretion rate was low in participants who had transit times over 10 h (14%). A strong correlation was found between adequate cleansing and excretion of the capsule. There were no serious adverse events related to the interventions or CCE investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

Chewing gum and coffee did not improve excretion rate in this study. An effect of chewing gum could not be proven, possibly due to sample size. Since chewing gum might improve excretion rates, is cheap and has no known side effects, it needs to be considered in future bowel preparation trials for CCE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02303756 , registered on December 1st 2014.

Multicentre randomized clinical trial of the effect of chewing gum after abdominal surgery

Background

Postoperative ileus is a common complication of abdominal surgery, leading to patient discomfort, morbidity and prolonged postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS). Previous studies suggested that chewing gum stimulates bowel function after abdominal surgery, but were underpowered to evaluate its effect on LOS and did not include enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)-based perioperative care. This study evaluated whether chewing gum after elective abdominal surgery reduces LOS and time to bowel recovery in the setting of ERAS-based perioperative care.

Methods

A multicentre RCT was performed of patients over 18 years of age undergoing abdominal surgery in 12 hospitals. Standard postoperative care (control group) was compared with chewing gum three times a day for 30 min in addition to standard postoperative care. Randomization was computer-generated; allocation was concealed. The primary outcome was postoperative LOS. Secondary outcomes were time to bowel recovery and 30-day complications.

Results

Between 2011 to 2015, 1000 patients were assigned to chewing gum and 1000 to the control arm. Median LOS did not differ: 7 days in both arms (P = 0·364). Neither was any difference found in time to flatus (24 h in control group versus 23 h with chewing gum; P = 0·873) or time to defaecation (60 versus 52 h respectively; P = 0·562). The rate of 30-day complications was not significantly different either.

Conclusion

The addition of chewing gum to an ERAS postoperative care pathway after elective abdominal surgery does not reduce the LOS, time to bowel recovery or the rate of postoperative complications. Registration number: NTR2594 (Netherlands Trial Register).

Meta-analysis comparing chewing gum versus standard postoperative care after colorectal resection

Background

Previous incomplete studies investigating the potential of chewing gum (CG) in patients undergoing colorectal resection did not obtain definitive conclusions. This updated meta-analysis was therefore conducted to evaluate the effect and safety of CG versus standard postoperative care protocols (SPCPs) after colorectal surgery.

Results

Total 26 RCTs enrolling 2214 patients were included in this study. The CG can be well-tolerated by all patients. Compared with SPCPs, CG was associated with shorter time to first flatus (weighted mean difference (WMD) −12.14 (95 per cent c.i. −15.71 to −8.56) hours; P < 0.001), bowl movement (WMD −17.32 (−23.41 to −11.22) hours; P < 0.001), bowel sounds (WMD −6.02 (−7.42 to −4.63) hours; P < 0.001), and length of hospital stay (WMD −0.95 (−1.55 to −0.35) days; P < 0.001), a lower risk of postoperative ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.61 (0.44 to 0.83); P = 0.002), net beneficial and quality of life. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall complications, nausea, vomiting, bloating, wound infection, bleeding, dehiscence, readmission, reoperation, mortality.

Materials and Methods

The potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CG with SPCPs for colorectal resection were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Wanfang databases through May 2016. The trial sequential analysis was adopted to examine whether a firm conclusion for specific outcome can be drawn.

Conclusions

CG is benefit for enhancing return of gastrointestinal function after colorectal resection, and may be associated with lower risk of postoperative ileus.

Effect of chewing gum on gastrointestinal function after gynecological surgery: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

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.

Chewing Gum for Intestinal Function Recovery after Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of chewing gum in intestinal function recovery after colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, and Cochrane library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until April 2017. Summary risk ratios or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were used for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively.

Results

17 RCTs with a total number of 1845 patients were included. Gum chewing following colorectal cancer surgery significantly reduced the time to first passage of flatus (WMD −0.55; 95% CI −0.94 to −0.16; P = 0.006), first bowel movement (WMD −0.60; 95% CI −0.87 to −0.33; P < 0.0001), start feeding (WMD −1.32; 95% CI −2.18 to −0.46; P = 0.003), and the length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD −0.88; 95% CI −1.59 to −0.17; P = 0.01), but no obvious differences were found in postoperative nausea, vomiting, abdominal distention, pneumonia, and mortality, which were consistent with the findings of intention to treat analysis.

Conclusions

Chewing gum could accelerate the recovery of intestinal function after colorectal cancer surgery. However, it confers no advantage in postoperative clinical complications. Further large-scale and high-quality RCTs should be conducted to confirm these results.

Effect of gum chewing on ameliorating ileus following colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chewing gum, as an alternative to sham feeding, had been shown to hasten the recovery of gut function following abdominal surgery. However, conclusions remained contradictory. We sought to conduct an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of gum chewing in alleviating ileus following colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases through February 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of the additional use of chewing gum following colorectal surgery. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment, meta-analysis was conducted by the Review Manager 5.3 software. The outcomes of interest were the time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, length of hospital stay, and some clinically relevant parameters. We also performed subgroup analyses according to the type of surgical approaches or on trials that adopted enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol or sugared gum.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs, involving 1736 patients, were included. Compared with standardized postoperative care, Chewing gum resulted in a shorter passage to first flatus [WMD = -8.81, 95%CI: (-13.45, -4.17), P = 0.0002], earlier recovery of bowel movement [WMD = -16.43, 95%CI: (-22.68, -10.19), P < 0.00001], and a reduction in length of hospital stay [WMD = -0.89, 95%CI: (-1.72, -0.07), P = 0.03]. Chewing gum was also associated with a lower risk of postoperative ileus [OR = 0.41, 95%CI: (0.23, 0.73), P = 0.003]. No evidence of significant advantages in overall postoperative complication, nausea, vomiting, bloating, readmission and reoperation towards the addition of chewing gum was observed. Subgroup analyses all favored gum chewing. However, the findings are hampered by the significant heterogeneity between trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, chewing gum offers an inexpensive, well-tolerated, safe and effective method to ameliorate ileus following colorectal surgery. However, tightly controlled, randomized and considerably larger multicenter trials are warranted to further validate our findings.

Chewing gum for intestinal function recovery after caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Enhanced recovery after elective caesarean: a rapid review of clinical protocols, and an umbrella review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The rate of elective Caesarean Section (CS) is rising in many countries. Many obstetric units in the UK have either introduced or are planning to introduce enhanced recovery (ER) as a means of reducing length of stay for planned CS. However, to date there has been very little evidence produced regarding the necessary components of ER for the obstetric population. We conducted a rapid review of the composition of published ER pathways for elective CS and undertook an umbrella review of systematic reviews evaluating ER components and pathways in any surgical setting.

METHODS

Pathways were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the National Guideline Clearing House, appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and their components tabulated. Systematic reviews were identified using the Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and appraised using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Two reviewers aggregated summaries of findings for Length of Stay (LoS).

RESULTS

Five clinical protocols were identified, involving a total of 25 clinical components; 3/25 components were common to all five pathways (early oral intake, mobilization and removal of urinary catheter). AGREE II scores were generally low. Systematic reviews of single components found that minimally invasive Joel-Cohen surgical technique, early catheter removal and post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis reduced LoS after CS most significantly by around half to 1 and a half days. Ten meta-analyses of multi-component Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) packages demonstrated reductions in LoS of between 1 and 4 days. The quality of evidence was mostly low or moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to develop, using formal methods, and evaluate pathways for enhanced recovery in elective CS. Appropriate quality improvement packages are needed to optimise their implementation.

Sham Feeding with Chewing Gum in Early Stage of Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

The correlation between sham feeding and acute pancreatitis (AP) has only been examined in limited studies. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sham feeding in the early stage of AP.

Material/Methods

A randomized controlled clinical trial was performed. Equal groups of AP patients were recruited. Patients in the sham feeding group received chewing gum 4 times a day after admission. All patients in the trial received standard treatment consistent with the guidelines for AP. The primary outcomes were mortality, length of stay (LOS), and medical expenses. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of complications and other adverse events, return of gastrointestinal function, the details of enteral nutrition and intra-abdominal pressure.

Results

From May 2014 to December 2015, a total of 204 patients were recruited. The LOS and hospital costs in the sham feeding group were reduced, although mortality was equivalent between groups. The return of gastrointestinal function occurred earlier in the sham feeding group, with no complications related to gum chewing.

Conclusions

Sham feeding with chewing gum is safe and efficacious in the early stage of AP.

Comparison of efficacy of simo decoction and acupuncture or chewing gum alone on postoperative ileus in colorectal cancer resection: a randomized trial

To compared the ability of chewing gum or simo decoction (SMD) and acupuncture to reduce incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) after colorectal cancer resection, patients with colorectal cancer undergoing open or laparoscopic resection were randomized to receive SMD and acupuncture (n = 196), chewing gum alone (n = 197) or no intervention (n = 197) starting on postoperative day 1 and continuing for 5 consecutive days. Patients treated with SMD and acupuncture experienced significantly shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus and shorter time to defecation than patients in the other groups (all P < 0.05). Incidence of grade I and II complications was also significantly lower in patients treated with SMD and acupuncture. Patients who chewed gum were similar to those who received no intervention in terms of hospital stay, incidence of complications, and time to first bowel motion, flatus, and defecation (all P > 0.05). The combination of SMD and acupuncture may reduce the incidence of POI and shorten hospital stay for patients with colorectal cancer after resection. In contrast, chewing gum does not appear to affect recovery of bowel function or hospital stay, though it may benefit patients who undergo open resection. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02813278).

Gum chewing for promoting intestinal function recovery after colorectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the effect of gum chewing on intestinal function recovery after colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

we searched databases such as PubMed and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of gum chewing on the intestinal function recovery after colorectal cancer surgery published till June 2016. RevMan5.3 analysis software was used for data consolidation.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies involving 2285 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis results showed that gum chewing after operation produced a significant difference in times to first flatus [-0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.74-(-0.41)], defecation [-0.62, 95%CI: -1.06-(-0.18)], bowel movement [-0.44, 95%CI: -0.72-(-0.16)], gastrin level (29.92, 95%CI: 15.65-44.19), feeding [-1.33, 95%CI: -2.19-(-0.48)], hospital stay [-1.33, 95%CI: -2.19-(-0.48)], and ileus (0.33, 95%CI: 0.14-0.78), although no significant difference was found in postoperative nausea (0.90, 95%CI: 0.59-1.39), vomiting (0.91, 95%CI: 0.59-1.39), abdominal distention (0.62, 95%CI: 0.36-1.06), or mortality (2.25, 95%CI: 0.63-8.09).

CONCLUSION

Gum chewing after colorectal cancer surgery may accelerate intestinal function recovery, but does not reduce postoperative complications. Larger rigorous studies are needed for better understanding of the role of gum chewing.

Chewing gum for enhancing early recovery of bowel function after caesarean section

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.

Demonstrating Value: A Case Study of Enhanced Recovery

An enhanced recovery after surgery strategy will be increasingly adopted in the era of value-based care. The various elements in each enhanced recovery after surgery protocol are likely to add value to the overall patient surgical journey. Although the evidence varies considerably based on type of surgery and patient group, the team-based approach of care should be universally applied to patient care. This article provides an overview of up-to-date techniques and methodology for enhanced recovery, including an overview of value-based care, delivery, and the evidence base supporting enhanced recovery after surgery.

Chewing gum for postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function

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.