Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of laxatives after major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recovery of gastrointestinal function is often delayed after major abdominal surgery, leading to postoperative ileus (POI). Enhanced recovery protocols recommend laxatives to reduce the duration of POI, but evidence is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of laxative use after major abdominal surgery.

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched from inception to May 2019 to identify eligible RCTs focused on elective open or minimally invasive major abdominal surgery. The primary outcome was time taken to passage of stool. Secondary outcomes were time taken to tolerance of diet, time taken to flatus, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and readmission to hospital.

Results

Five RCTs with a total of 416 patients were included. Laxatives reduced the time to passage of stool (mean difference (MD) -0·83 (95 per cent c.i. -1·39 to -0·26) days; P = 0·004), but there was significant heterogeneity between studies for this outcome measure. There was no difference in time to passage of flatus (MD -0·17 (-0·59 to 0·25) days; P = 0·432), time to tolerance of diet (MD -0·01 (-0·12 to 0·10) days; P = 0·865) or length of hospital stay (MD 0·01(-1·36 to 1·38) days; P = 0·992). There were insufficient data available on postoperative complications for meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Routine postoperative laxative use after major abdominal surgery may result in earlier passage of stool but does not influence other postoperative recovery parameters. Better data are required for postoperative complications and validated outcome measures.

SUBMITTER: Dudi-Venkata NN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7397346 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of laxatives after major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dudi-Venkata N N NN Seow W W Kroon H M HM Bedrikovetski S S Moore J W JW Thomas M L ML Sammour T T

BJS open 20200527 4

<h4>Background</h4>Recovery of gastrointestinal function is often delayed after major abdominal surgery, leading to postoperative ileus (POI). Enhanced recovery protocols recommend laxatives to reduce the duration of POI, but evidence is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of laxative use after major abdominal surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched from inception to May 2019 to identify eligible RCTs f ...[more]

PMID: 32459069

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:Objectives: This systematic review set out to identify, evaluate and synthesise the evidence examining the effect of prehabilitation including exercise on postoperative outcomes following abdominal cancer surgery. Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE 1946-2020, EMBASE 1947-2020, CINAHL 1937-2020, PEDro 1999-2020, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials 1991-2020) were systematically searched (until August 2020) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of prehabilitation interventions in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. This review included any form of prehabilitation either unimodal or multimodal that included whole body and/or respiratory exercises as a stand-alone intervention or in addition to other prehabilitation interventions (such as nutrition and psychology) compared to standard care. Results: Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 21 studies in the meta-analysis. There was moderate quality of evidence that multimodal prehabilitation improves pre-operative functional capacity as measured by 6 min walk distance (Mean difference [MD] 33.09 metres, 95% CI 17.69-48.50; p = <0.01) but improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness such as preoperative oxygen consumption at peak exercise (VO2 peak; MD 1.74 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -0.03-3.50; p = 0.05) and anaerobic threshold (AT; MD 1.21 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -0.34-2.76; p = 0.13) were not significant. A reduction in hospital length of stay (MD 3.68 days, 95% CI 0.92-6.44; p = 0.009) was observed but no effect was observed for postoperative complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.18; p = 0.27), pulmonary complications (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01; p = 0.05), hospital re-admission (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61-1.90; p = 0.81) or postoperative mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43-2.09, p = 0.90). Conclusion: Multimodal prehabilitation improves preoperative functional capacity with reduction in hospital length of stay. This supports the need for ongoing research on innovative cost-effective prehabilitation approaches, research within large multicentre studies to verify this effect and to explore implementation strategies within clinical practise.

Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage (APD) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) when compared with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database were electronically searched to collect cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 25 July 2020. Studies related to comparing APD with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on PCD were included.OutcomesThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of organ dysfunction, infectious complications, hospitalisation expenses and length of hospital stay.ResultsFive cohort studies and three RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared with the conventional 'step-up' method, pooled results suggested APD significantly decreased all-cause mortality during hospitalisation (cohort studies: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89 and p=0.02), length of hospital stay (cohort studies: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.10 and p=0.005; RCTs: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.26 and p<0.001) and hospitalisation expenses (cohort studies: SMD -2.49, 95% CI -4.46 to -0.51 and p<0.001; RCTs: SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.44 and p<0.001). There was no evidence to prove that APD was associated with a higher incidence of infectious complications. However, the incidence of organ dysfunction between cohort studies and RCTs subgroup slightly differed (cohort studies: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.28 and p=0.22; RCTs: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98 and p=0.04).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that early application of APD in patients with AP is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, expenses during hospitalisation and the length of stay compared with the 'step-up' strategy without significantly increasing the risk of infectious complications. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of included studies as well as a larger dependence on observational trials.Prospero registration numberCRD42020168537.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of laxatives after major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Safety and efficacy of laxatives after major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets