The effect of early oral postoperative feeding on the recovery of intestinal motility after gastrointestinal surgery: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the ever-shorter length of hospital stay after surgical procedures, nowadays it is more important than ever to study interventions that may have an impact on surgical patients' wellbeing. According to the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols) program, early feeding must be considered one of the key components to facilitate early recovery while improving outcomes and patients' overall experiences. To date, the international literature has reported that early postoperative feeding compared with traditional (or late) timing is safe; nevertheless, small clinical outcomes effects has been reported, also for recovery of gastrointestinal function. Therefore, the effectiveness of early postoperative feeding to reduce postoperative ileus duration remains still debated.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effects of early versus delayed oral feeding (liquids and food) on the recovery of intestinal motility after gastrointestinal surgery. SEARCH
METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the ClincalTrials.gov register will be searched to identify the RCTs of interest. STUDY INCLUSION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of early postoperative versus late oral feeding on major postoperative outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery will be included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts to determine the initially selected studies' inclusion. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion and consulting a third review author. The research team members will then proceed with the methodological evaluation of the studies and their eligibility for inclusion in the systematic review.

Introduction

Description of the condition

The modern meaning of the ileus condition reflects the absent or reduced peristalsis that can be attributed to a normal, prolonged, or pathological response of the gastrointestinal tract. This failure of peristalsis results in the accumulation of gastrointestinal secretions leading to abdominal distention and nausea, possibly vomiting [1].

By this definition, postoperative ileus is a transient cessation of coordinated bowel motility after surgical intervention, which prevents effective transit of intestinal contents or tolerance of oral intake resulting in the presence of nausea, vomiting, and the failure to pass flatus or stool [1]. Furthermore, it may become a source of pain and discomfort for the patient and leading to the consequent onset of impaired nutritional requirements and protein deficiency and, therefore to increased risk of infection, delays in hospital discharge increasing costs [2-4].

In the literature, some authors as Bragg et al. [1] and Holte & Kehlet [5], described how the return of a normal gastrointestinal function after surgery follows, in most cases, three stages: 1) the small bowel recovers between 0 and 24 hours, 2) the stomach between 24 and 48 hours and 3) the colon between 48 and 72 hours. However, other authors like Delaney et al. [6] state that gastric and small bowel activities should return to normal function just a few hours after surgery. As this background, it is still debated how to distinguish between a physiological and a prolonged status of ileus. Moreover, postoperative ileus (POI) is a common response to abdominal surgery, with an estimated incidence between 17% and 80% [7]. The high variability of incidence reported in the literature reflects the absence of an established and shared definition of what can be accepted as a “normal” duration of the intestinal paralysis [1, 3]. Nevertheless, Lee et al. [8] highlighted that postoperative ileus could be considered resolved if the following requirements are concomitantly present: food tolerance, absence of abdominal distension, the passage of flatus, or stools.

Because of the lack of consensus regarding the POI definition, some uncertainties remainy regarding its assessment and therefore regarding which outcomes may be the most appropriate to evaluate. Many different effects have been proposed in the literature as an expression of POI resolution, such as the reappearance of bowel sounds and passage of flatus or bowel movement, tolerance to fluid and food consumption, and reinsertion of the nasogastric tube together with the presence of bowel sound. However, these seem to be poor markers of Ileus recovery [9].

Currently, the most effective approaches for postoperative ileus tend to be focused on prevention rather than treatment. Some interventions, as the adoption of minimally invasive surgery [10], perioperative fluid management strategies based on the “Goal-Directed Therapy” [11], and the use of local epidural anaesthetics in lieu of opioid-based analgesic regimens [12], have been thoroughly studied and have been considered effective for ileus prevention.

One of the five key component of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols) program [13] is enforced early feeding. In current practice, early feeding is reached using different kind of interventions such as chewing gum, [4] coffee consumption [14], sips of water clear fluid, tube feeding and so on, sometimes a combination of these interventions can be proposed [9, 15]. Chapman and colleagues [4] reported that early postoperative feeding compared with traditional (or late) timing was safe and reduced length of hospital stay; nevertheless, they reported small effects in hospital discharge with an uncertain clinical significance, shoving minimal effects on a several measurement of gastrointestinal function. Although early oral feeding is considered by the international literature a common and safe intervention for postoperative ileus prevention, the current evidence regarding early versus delayed postoperative feeding does not highlight any significant change regarding the incidence of wound infections, intra-abdominal abscesses, or pneumonia [16]. Therefore, the effectiveness of early postoperative feeding to reduce ileus duration remains debated.

Description of the intervention

Over the last few years, early postoperative feeding (within 24 hours from surgery) was among the many preventive multimodal interventions introduced in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols (ERAS). The ERAS has been proven effective in accelerating the post-surgical recovery and reducing hospital length of stay, although the relationship between early feeding and ileus has not yet been directly evaluated. To date, it has been considered safe to resume feeding early in the postoperative period without the risk of negative impacts on the anastomosis dehiscence [17].

How the intervention might work

Early oral nutrition allows the gastrointestinal system to regain its physiological status and functions more rapidly than parenteral nutrition and specifically stimulates motility, which will allow a faster first passage of flatus and stools [18]. In addition, on the one hand, early oral nutrition would prevent significant metabolic changes that occur within 24 hours of starvation, such as increased insulin resistance [19]; on the other, it would readily provide the fundamental constituents for surgical wound healing.

Why it is important to perform this review

The postoperative time and day to be considered safe to resume oral intake and the concept of “early feeding” is still discussed and varies widely between surgical contexts. Moreover, there is no shared definition regarding the most appropriate outcomes that need to be used to evaluate postoperative ileus and the most appropriate time and nutrients to administer to stimulate peristalsis.

The intervention “feeding” itself remains vague due to the lack of consensus regarding what is considered feeding (liquids versus solid food, for example) and what is the best approach in terms of types of nutritional components routinely prescribed to the patients to improve intestinal motility, which may vary widely across surgical settings and cultures and therefore being context specific.

Most of the previously published systematic reviews considered only colorectal [9, 20, 21] or lower gastrointestinal surgery [16], or assessed other primary outcomes rather than POI, such as length of stay (LoS) and postoperative complications [23].

The strategies currently used to improve postoperative intestinal motility concerning oral feeding include the administration of sips of water, clear fluids, coffee, restrictions to or combination of certain food types [4].

Objectives

The main aim of this study is to provide a systematic review of the effects of early versus delayed oral feeding (liquids and food) on the recovery of intestinal motility after gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

Study registration

This systematic review has been registered prospectively in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) the registration number is CRD42022298777.

The protocol aligns with the PRISMA-P guidelines [22], and the checklist is available in S1 Appendix.

Criteria for including studies in this review

Types of studies

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of early postoperative versus late oral feeding on major postoperative outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery will be included. In fact, RCTs are considered to provide the strongest measure of whether an intervention has an effect. Because of the “fast-track” approach, which includes post-operative early feeding among other core components, has been developed in the 1990s, studies published since 1990, will be considered. Moreover, due to the language skills of the research team, studies in English, Italian, and German will be assessed.

Types of participants

Participants included in this study will be adult patients (>18 years old) undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal surgery regardless of the type of incision, surgical technique, and type of anesthesia. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery, due to its metabolic nature, appendectomy and proctological surgery will be excluded, as well as gynecological procedures.

Types of intervention

The main intervention will be the early postoperative oral feeding with fluids and food. It will be considered “early” if feeding was started within 24 hours from the end of the surgery and in case the food and/or fluids were administered by mouth. We will not include enteral and parenteral feedings.

The control intervention will be “delayed” postoperative feeding, defined as if it started after 24 hours from the end of the surgery.

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcome: time to first passage of stool (first passage in days).

Secondary outcomes: time to onset of first flatulence, the first sound, and bowel movement, the onset of gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, diet intolerance, cramps, distension, and abdominal pain, length of hospital stay, and other adverse events.

Search methods for identification of studies

Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the ClincalTrials.gov register will be searched to identify the RCTs of interest. Additionally, the SIGLE System for Information on Grey Literature (SIGLE) will be consulted to identify further studies or papers not published. The bibliographic references will be revised, and, if necessary, the corresponding authors will be contacted to clarify doubts and consider unpublished data.

Electronic searches

The research in the databases will be performed using the terms as both free texts as well as MeSH and EMTREE terms by adopting the search strings specified in S2 Appendix.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

The records identified through the search methods will be transferred in Excel® (Microsoft, 2021) spreadsheets. Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts for relevancy in Covidence. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion and consulting a third review author. The research team members will then proceed with the methodological evaluation of the studies and their eligibility for inclusion in the systematic review.

Data extraction and management

For each RCT included, the following data will be extracted using electronic data collection forms in Covidence:

article references (first author, journal, year)

study setting

research methods (study design, study total duration, washout period)

type of surgery (emergency, or elective surgery)

participants characteristics (age, gender)

intervention (main and control)

study’s primary and secondary outcomes

main results

free notes

Risk of bias assessment

Two independent reviewers will perform the quality and risk of bias assessment of the selected studies using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention (Higgins, 2011) [23] tool. The risk of bias will be assessed according to the following domains:

random sequence generation

allocation concealment

blinding of participants and personnel

blinding of outcome assessment

incomplete outcome data

selective reporting bias

other bias.

The risk of bias of each included trial will be classified as high, low, or moderate based on the following criteria:

low risk: assigned to studies with low risk in all key domains;

high risk: accorded to studies found with high risk in one or more key domains;

unclear risk of bias: in case of unclear risk of bias found in one or more key domains.

Measure of treatment effect

We will use the mean difference (MD) to assess the treatment effect of the continuous variables, like the primary outcome, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), if the studies presented the same measurement scales. If the studies do not show homogeneity regarding the choice of the measurement scales, we will recur to standard mean difference (SMD). We will also consider the frequency of postoperative complications and the adverse events related to the surgery, applying for dichotomous data a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs.

Dealing with missing data

The authors of the trials will be contacted to retrieve relevant missing data. We will conduct a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact on the overall treatment effects, and we will address in the discussion the impact of the missing data on the overall effects of the systematic review.

Assessment of heterogeneity

Clinical heterogeneity will be determined based on the methodology of the studies and the demographic data of each study’s participants. As regarding statistical heterogeneity, we will assess it across studies by visual inspection of the plot and applying the I2 statistic with Q statistic test.

We will apply the following thresholds for interpretation [23]:

0–40%: low heterogeneity

30–60%: moderate heterogeneity

50–90%: substantial heterogeneity

75–100%: considerable heterogeneity

Assessment of reporting bias

A funnel plot will be used to assess reporting bias if more than ten trials will be included for meta-analysis.

Data synthesis

We will perform a narrative synthesis of the sample, intervention, and outcome findings. Dichotomous data will be calculated as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We will perform statistical analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software (RevMan 2014) with a fixed-effects model. We will calculate the I2 statistic and P-value from Chi-squared. If the I2 is higher than 50%, the random-effects model will be used, and the reasons for this heterogeneity will be investigated. If no more than ten trials are included for meta-analysis, then we will use funnel plots for reporting bias assessment.

Subgroup analysis

We will perform a quantitative meta-analysis of RCTs retrieved in the systematic review. We plan to conduct these subgroup analyses:

type of intervention: upper vs. lower gastrointestinal tract (proximal or distal to Treitz’s ligament, respectively);

emergency vs. elective surgery;

cancerous or non-cancerous conditions.

Summary of evidence

The quality of evidence for all outcomes will be judged using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology [22]. It will be considered ‘high’, ‘moderate’, ‘low’ or ‘very low’ based on: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias, and additional domains. The results will then be presented.

Ethics and dissemination

This review will not include private information from individuals and will not affect patients and their rights. For this reason, ethical approval is not indicated. The results of this scientific project will be disseminated through congresses and peer-reviewed publications.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis is expected to provide objective evidence of the effects of early vs. delayed oral feeding (liquids and food) on the recovery of intestinal motility after gastrointestinal surgery and on which oral intake should be considered more effective to prevent postoperative ileus according to the different types of surgery.

The PRISMA-P checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The search strategy for PubMed.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jul 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alberto Meyer, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would recoomend a program like Covidence for systematic review management, with proper blinding of the reviewers

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript – I have found the topic interesting and important to the field of gastrointestinal surgery. A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of the effect of early oral postoperative feeding on the recovery of intestinal motility.

The authors tackle a major challenge in gastrointestinal surgery. They correctly identify the current literature, with the most up-to-date systematic review results including data on the effect of early post-operative feeding. The methodology for the review is sound with minor comments below. My only limitation lies with what this review will add to the literature, given recent relevant systematic reviews that have covered this topic.

Please consider the following comments.

1. Please could the authors explain their reasoning for language and year restriction in line with AMSTAR 2 guidance. Also, an explanation for non-randomised trial exclusion is warranted.

2. I appreciate the potential reasons for why bariatric surgery was excluded, however the protocol would benefit from a transparent explanation to the reader.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Anders C Larsen

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Aug 2022

Dear Reviewers,

thank you for your feedback.

We have really appreciated your suggestions.

Each point has been considered with care and appropriately addressed as indicated below.

We have introduced the changes required and we have highlighted them with Track Changes.

Thank you again for your attention and consideration.

Reviewer #1: I would recoomend a program like Covidence for systematic review management, with proper blinding of the reviewers

Thank you for your feedback. Me and my co-authors have discussed it and we have decided to move forward with this suggestion. We added this information in the Data collection and analysis section.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript - I have found the topic interesting and important to the field of gastrointestinal surgery. A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of the effect of early oral postoperative feeding on the recovery of intestinal motility.

The authors tackle a major challenge in gastrointestinal surgery. They correctly identify the current literature, with the most up-to-date systematic review results including data on the effect of early post-operative feeding. The methodology for the review is sound with minor comments below.

My only limitation lies with what this review will add to the literature, given recent relevant systematic reviews that have covered this topic.

This is a very interesting point. The reserch group is aware that there are other recent SRs on this topic but limited to colorectal or lower gastrointestinal surgical patients. Moreover, the outcomes were heterogeneus and other primary outcomes rather than post-operative ileus were measured. We added these reasons in the “Why it is important to do this review”section.

Please consider the following comments.

1. Please could the authors explain their reasoning for language and year restriction in line with AMSTAR 2 guidance. Also, an explanation for non-randomised trial exclusion is warranted.

We added the information requested in the Types of studies paragraph.

2. I appreciate the potential reasons for why bariatric surgery was excluded, however the protocol would benefit from a transparent explanation to the reader.

Thank you for rising this relevant point. We deepen discussed on this issue whitin the reserch group during the protocol development. Thus, we decided to exclude the bariatric surgery due to its metabolic nature that implies different kind of effects and a post-operative care tailored to patient’s needs (PMID: 24194467). We added a statement in the “Types of participants” paragraph.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Aug 2022

The effect of early oral postoperative feeding on the recovery of intestinal motility after gastrointestinal surgery: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-41001R1

Dear Dr. Canzan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alberto Meyer, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for accepting our recommendations for revision and incorporating the relevant changes.

I am satisfied with your response and thus happy to recommend in favour of publication of your study.

Kind regards

Reviewers' comments:

8 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-41001R1

The effect of early oral postoperative feeding on the recovery of intestinal motility after gastrointestinal surgery: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Canzan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Alberto Meyer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE