Early Versus Traditional Postoperative Feeding in Patients Undergoing Resectional Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Meta‐Analysis
Abstract
Background A meta-analysis evaluating surgical outcomes following nutritional provision provided proximal to the anastomosis within 24 hours of gastrointestinal surgery compared with traditional postoperative management was conducted. Methods Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of early and traditional postoperative feeding. Trials involving gastrointestinal tract resection followed by patients receiving nutritionally significant oral or enteral intake within 24 hours after surgery were included for analysis. Results Fifteen studies involving a total of 1240 patients were analyzed. A statistically significant reduction (45%) in relative odds of total postoperative complications was seen in patients receiving early postoperative feeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.55; confidence interval [CI], 0.35 -0.87, P = .01). No effect of early feeding was seen with relation to anastomotic dehiscence (OR 0.75; CI, 0.39-1.4, P = .39), mortality (OR 0.71; CI, 0.32-1.56, P = .39), days to passage of flatus (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.42; CI, -1.12 to 0.28, P = .23), first bowel motion (WMD -0.28; CI, -1.20 to 0.64, P = .55), or reduced length of stay (WMD -1.28; CI, -2.94 to 0.38, P = .13); however, the direction of clinical outcomes favored early feeding. Nasogastric tube reinsertion was less common in traditional feeding interventions (OR 1.48; CI, 0.93-2.35, P = .10). Conclusions Early postoperative nutrition is associated with significan…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Time to resumed bowel function is significantly in favor of allowing normal food at will.
“Time to resumed bowel function is significantly in favor of”
From ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition (2021) · cites this paper as [208]
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582 · see citing works
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380 · see citing works
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826 · see citing works
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256 · see citing works
<i>meta-analysis</i> bias in location and selection of studies
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61 · Cited by 1,374 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McClave, S. A., Taylor, B. E., Martindale, R. G., Warren, M. M., Johnson, D. R., Braunschweig, C., McCarthy, M. S., Davanos, E., Rice, T. W., Cresci, G. A., et al. (2016) · Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · doi:10.1177/0148607115621863 · Cited by 3,982 · see citing works
Taylor, B. E., McClave, S. A., Martindale, R. G., Warren, M. M., Johnson, D. R., Braunschweig, C., McCarthy, M. S., Davanos, E., Rice, T. W., Cresci, G. A., et al. (2016) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001525 · Cited by 1,476 · see citing works
Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines
ESICM Working Group on Gastrointestinal Function, Reintam Blaser, A., Starkopf, J., Alhazzani, W., Berger, M. M., Casaer, M. P., Deane, A. M., Fruhwald, S., Hiesmayr, M., Ichai, C., et al. (2017) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4665-0 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease
Forbes, A., Escher, J., Hébuterne, X., Kłęk, S., Krznaric, Z., Schneider, S., Shamir, R., Stardelova, K., Wierdsma, N., Wiskin, A. E., et al. (2017) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.12.027 · Cited by 625 · see citing works
RetractedESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition
Thibault, R., Abbasoglu, O., Ioannou, E., Meija, L., Ottens-Oussoren, K., Pichard, C., Rothenberg, E., Rubin, D., Siljamäki-Ojansuu, U., Vaillant, M.-F., et al. (2021) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2021.09.039 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Zhuang, C.-L., Ye, X.-Z., Zhang, C.-J., Dong, Q.-T., Chen, B.-C., & Yu, Z. (2013) · Digestive Surgery · doi:10.1159/000353136 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Willcutts, K. F., Chung, M. C., Erenberg, C. L., Finn, K. L., Schirmer, B. D., & Byham-Gray, L. D. (2016) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000001644 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Diet and inflammatory bowel disease: the Asian Working Group guidelines
Sood, A., Ahuja, V., Kedia, S., Midha, V., Mahajan, R., Mehta, V., Sudhakar, R., Singh, A., Kumar, A., Puri, A. S., et al. (2019) · Indian Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1007/s12664-019-00976-1 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
- Authors
- Osland, E., Yunus, R. M., Khan, S., & Memon, M. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Queensland (AU)
- Bond University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Memon, Muhammed Ashraf
- Venue
- Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-31
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 473-487
- ISSN
- 0148-6071 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-2444
- OpenAlex
- W2043271833
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 15.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- e-publications@bond (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
- Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
- Keywords
- early postoperative feeding, gastrointestinal resection, postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, enteral nutrition, oral feeding, bowel function recovery, length of hospital stay, mortality
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Enteral Nutrition, Humans, Length of Stay, Postoperative Care, Postoperative Complications, Postoperative Period, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Odds Ratio, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
