Digestive surgery · 2013
Early versus traditional postoperative oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhuang Cheng-Le, Ye Xing-Zhao, Zhang Chang-Jing, Dong Qian-Tong, Chen Bi-Cheng, Yu Zhen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of early oral feeding after colorectal surgery has not been determined. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate surgical outcomes following early oral feeding compared with traditional oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes following early oral feeding versus traditional oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. The trials must have reported at least one of the following end points: anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia, wound infection, nasogastric tube reinsertion, vomiting, mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Seven trials, which included a total of 587 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Compared with traditional oral feeding, early oral feeding reduced the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.58 days; 95% CI -2.77 to -0.39; p = 0.009) and the total postoperative complications (relative risk 0.70; 95% CI 0.50-0.98; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the risk of anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia, wound infection, rate of nasogastric tube reinsertion, vomiting, or mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Early oral feeding is safe and effective in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes following early oral feeding versus traditional oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. The trials must have reported at least one of the following end points: anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia, wound infection, nasogastric tube reinsertion, vomiting, mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Seven trials, which included a total of 587 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Compared with traditional oral feeding, early oral feeding reduced the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.58 days; 95% CI -2.77 to -0.39; p = 0.009) and the total postoperative complications (relative risk 0.70; 95% CI 0.50-0.98; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the risk of anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia, wound infection, rate of nasogastric tube reinsertion, vomiting, or mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Early oral feeding is safe and effective in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.