AimEnhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) involve early postoperative oral feeding. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that intolerance to early feeding was associated with a complicated postoperative course.MethodA retrospective cohort analysis of the prospective multicentre database developed by the Francophone Group for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (GRACE) was undertaken. Seventy‐one centres in Belgium, France and Switzerland participated in the study. All patients were encouraged to eat within 24 h after surgery. Patients were separated into two groups according to whether early feeding was well tolerated (WT) or poorly tolerated (PT). The primary outcome measure was overall postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures were unplanned reoperation, early mobilization rate and duration of postoperative hospital stay.ResultsAmong the cohort of 3034 patients, early feeding was WT in 2614 patients (WT group) and PT in 420 patients (PT group). There were significantly more postoperative complications in the PT group than in the WT group (52.1% vs 17.0%, respectively; P = 0.001), namely more unplanned reoperations, less early mobilization and longer postoperative hospital stay. Multivariate analyses confirmed that PT early feeding was the main and dominant independent factor for postoperative complications [OR 4.47 (95% CI3.49–5.72); P < 0.001], more unplanned reoperations and longer hospital stay.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a close relationship between intolerance to early feeding and a complicated postoperative course. Whenever this simple very early red flag is observed, discharge should not be planned until postoperative complications have been ruled out.
Aim: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to assess to what extent probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery and whether probiotics or synbiotics should be considered as perioperative measures preventing or reducing infectious complications after CRS and should be included in enhanced recovery programmes (ERP). Secondary aims were to answer practical questions precisely on the best formulation and the type and timing of probiotics or synbiotics in CRS. Method: This systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomised trials comparing perioperative probiotics/synbiotics with a placebo or standard care in elective colorectal surgery. Exclusion criteria were non-randomised trials. Overall infectious complications and surgical site infections (SSIs including both deep abdominal infections and wound (skin or under the skin) infections) were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary and urinary infections, wound infections, and anastomotic leaks. The databases consulted were Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Clinical Trials Register. Risk of bias was assessed according to the GRADE approach. The analysis calculated the random effects estimates risk ratio (RR) for each outcome. Results: 21 trials were included; 15 evaluated probiotics, and 6 evaluated synbiotics. There were significantly fewer infectious complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.59 [0.47–0.75], I2 = 15%) and fewer SSI (RR 0.70 [0.52–0.95], I2 = 0%) in the probiotic or synbiotic group. There were also significantly fewer pulmonary infections (RR 0.35 [0.20–0.63]) and urinary infections RR 0.41 [0.19–0.87]) as opposed to anastomotic leaks (RR 0.83 [0.47–1.48]) and wound infections (RR 0.74 [0.53–1.03]). Sensitivity analyses showed no significant difference between probiotics and synbiotics in reducing postoperative infections (RR 0.55 [0.42–0.73] versus RR 0.69 [0.42–1.13], p = 0.46). Conclusions: Based on the finding of this study, probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery. The effect size was more pronounced for pulmonary and urinary infections. From a practical aspect, some of the questions related to formulations and duration of probiotics or synbiotics need to be answered before including them definitively in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery programmes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.