Chewing gum and postoperative ileus in adults: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Post-operative ileus (POI) is a major problem following elective abdominal surgery. Several studies have been published investigating the use of chewing gum to reduce POI. These studies however, have produced variable results. Thus, there is currently no consensus on whether chewing gum should be widely instituted as a means to help reduce POI. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review to evaluate whether the use of chewing gum post-operatively improves POI in abdominal surgery. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted according to the guidelines in the PRISMA statement. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Science Direct, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Clinical outcomes were extracted and meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 1019 patients from 12 randomised controlled studies included in this review. Only one study was conducted in an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) environment. Seven of the twelve studies concluded that chewing gum reduced post-operative ileus. The remaining five studies found no clinical improvement. Overall, there was a small benefit in reducing time to flatus, and time to bowel motion, but no difference in the length of stay or complications. CONCLUSION: Chewing gum offers only a small benefit in reducing time to flatus and time to passage of bowel motion following abdominal surgery. This benefit is of limited clinical significance. Further studies should be conducted in a modern peri-operative care environment.

Efficacy of general practitioners with specialty interests for surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners with specialty interests (GPwSIs) have been an emerging entity in the last decade or so and aim to improve patient's access to specialist level care in the primary care setting. This is achieved by them providing equivalent quality and outcomes to secondary consultant-led services, while not necessarily providing the same breadth of clinical care as them. In this systematic review, we attempt to address their efficacy for surgical procedures and specialties. METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed and an electronic literature search was performed independently by two authors using predefined search terms across EMBASE, Ovid MedLine, PubMed, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library databases. A total of 817 articles were reviewed after which only six were included for the systematic review. RESULTS: Of the six articles selected, three studies analysed efficacy of GPwSIs with regard to surgical excision of skin lesions. One study looked at the economic evaluation of a GPwSI-led dermatology service in primary care and included GPwSIs carrying out skin excisions. The remaining two included studies were from the same institution and evaluated hernia repairs at a single centre general practitioner practice. CONCLUSION: There is generally, a paucity of evidence looking at the efficacy of GPwSIs for surgical procedures. While they seem to provide an acceptable standard of specialist care in the primary care setting, they do not appear to save money. However, they provide an alternative workforce and the improved access to care that results from it may offset their higher costs.

Lymph node evaluation and long-term survival in Stage II and Stage III colon cancer: a national study.

BACKGROUND: The most important prognostic factor in colonic cancer is the presence or absence of regional lymph nodes metastases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between 5-year mortality in the New Zealand population, and the number of nodes examined in Stage II and III colon cancers. METHODS: New Zealand Cancer Registry data were retrieved for patients with colonic cancer from January 1995 to July 2003. Patients with incomplete entries, Stage I tumors, and distant metastases were excluded from analysis. Univariate and Cox regression models were used with 5-year mortality as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The study identified 4309 patients. Younger age, female gender, Pacific Island descent, and right-sided tumors were associated with significantly higher lymph node retrieval. Cox regression analysis showed that the number of nodes examined was a significant predictor of 5-year mortality when age, sex, ethnicity, and site were controlled for. Five-year survival consistently improved between nodal strata until the 16-node mark, above which survival advantage was minimal. For Stage III cancers, a higher lymph node ratio was associated with a significant increase in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of nodal examination are associated with a significantly lower 5-year mortality for Stage II and III colonic cancer, but this survival advantage appears to be minimal after the 16-node mark. The lymph node ratio has been validated as a powerful predictor of survival in Stage III cancer. Our results support the current practice of harvesting and examining as many nodes as possible during attempted curative resection.

Fast-track surgery may reduce complications following major colonic surgery.

PURPOSE: Fast-track (enhanced recovery) care pathways for colonic surgery are becoming increasingly popular; however, there have been concerns regarding protocol compliance, high readmission rates, and also the true impact on morbidity rates with these protocols. This study was conducted to assess the impact of a fast-track program for colonic surgery on hospital stay, complications, and readmission rates. METHODS: From December 2005 to March 2007, consecutive patients undergoing colonic surgery were prospectively studied. The comparison group consisted of a comorbidity-matched group of patients who had undergone similar surgery before establishment of the fast-track program. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in each group. Groups were comparable at baseline. The fast-track group received significantly smaller amounts of intraoperative and postoperative intravenous fluids, were fed earlier, mobilized earlier, passed flatus earlier, and were discharged earlier than the comparison group (4 vs. 6.5 days, P < 0.001). The numbers of patients with urinary infections (2 vs. 12, P = 0.008), ileus (5 vs. 18, P = 0.005), and cardiopulmonary complications (11 vs. 21, P = 0.032) were significantly lower in the fast-track group. There was no difference in the rate of readmission. CONCLUSION: Fast-track is a safe and effective approach for reducing hospital stay and morbidity following major colonic surgery.

Minimal access colonic surgery: is it truly minimally invasive?

Laparoscopic colonic surgery has an established role in the management of both benign and malignant conditions. Proposed benefits from laparoscopic surgery include decreased pain, decreased metabolic disturbance to the patient and faster recovery. It is now generally accepted that pro-inflammatory mediators, including cytokines, are to a great extent responsible for the metabolic changes associated with injury and surgery, and that these metabolic changes are related to postoperative recovery. Cytokine levels in the serum are decreased after major laparoscopic colorectal surgery compared with open surgery. However, the cytokine concentration in abdominal drain fluid is the same independent of the size of the incision and these concentrations are far higher than those found in the serum suggesting that the peritoneal would from the surgery itself is more important to metabolic events than the skin wound used to access the abdominal cavity to perform the operation. When looked at critically in programmes where patients are optimally managed perioperatively, there appears to be minimal metabolic benefit from performing a major colonic resection using minimal access surgery. Thus, it appears that the wound is critical when the operation involves only minor peritoneal disruption, such as in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, but when large peritoneal defects are created, such as in major colorectal surgery, then the skin wound becomes irrelevant to metabolism and hence recovery. Thus, minimal access does not necessarily equate to minimal invasion and the terms should not be used interchangeably in the context of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.