Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce the time to recovery of gut function after elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Postoperative ileus causes significant patient morbidity after abdominal surgery. Some evidence suggests nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce time to gut recovery, but there has not been a meta-analysis to assess their efficacy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the benefit of NSAIDs for recovery of postoperative gut function in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and reference lists were searched with no date or language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials comparing the use of NSAIDs with placebo in the perioperative or postoperative period were identified. Included studies reported outcomes relevant to gut function: time to pass flatus or stool and time to tolerate an oral diet. The mean difference in time from surgery until passage of flatus, stool and tolerance of diet were meta-analysed using a random-effects model in RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: This study identified 992 relevant articles. Five randomized controlled trials on patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery met our inclusion criteria and were meta-analysed. Compared with placebo, NSAIDs significantly improved the time to pass flatus (mean difference -9.44 h, 95% CI: -17.22, -1.65, I2 = 70%, P = 0.02), time to pass stool (mean difference -12.09 h, 95% CI: -17.16, -7.02, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001) and time to tolerate a diet (mean difference -11.95 h, 95% CI: -18.66, -5.24, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NSAIDs significantly improve time to gut recovery after elective colorectal surgery. Current evidence is not adequate to identify whether selective or nonselective drugs should be recommended. Further high-power studies using selective drugs are required.

Limited evidence of abnormal intra-colonic pressure profiles in diverticular disease - a systematic review.

AIM: Abnormal colonic pressure profiles and high intraluminal pressures are postulated to contribute to the formation of sigmoid colon diverticulosis and the pathophysiology of diverticular disease. This study aimed to review evidence for abnormal colonic pressure profiles in diverticulosis. METHOD: All published studies investigating colonic pressure in patients with diverticulosis were searched in three databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus). No language restrictions were applied. Any manometry studies in which patients with diverticulosis were compared with controls were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for case-control studies was used as a measure of risk of bias. A cut-off of five or more points on the NOS (fair quality in terms of risk of bias) was chosen for inclusion in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies (published 1962-2005) met the inclusion criteria. The studies followed a wide variety of protocols and all used low-resolution manometry (sensor spacing range 7.5-15 cm). Six studies compared intra-sigmoid pressure, with five of six showing higher pressure in diverticulosis vs controls, but only two reached statistical significance. A meta-analysis was not performed as only two studies were above the cut-off and these did not have comparable outcomes. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of manometry data shows that evidence for abnormal pressure in the sigmoid colon in patients with diverticulosis is weak. Existing studies utilized inconsistent methodology, showed heterogeneous results and are of limited quality. Higher quality studies using modern manometric techniques and standardized reporting methods are needed to clarify the role of colonic pressure in diverticulosis.