title: A meta-analysis on the effect of sham feeding following colectomy: should gum chewing be included in enhanced recovery after surgery protocols?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Sham feeding has been shown to hasten the return of GI function following colorectal surgery, before the advent of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Few data exist regarding the efficacy of sham feeding in the modern era, with rapid postoperative feeding.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We sought to perform a meta-analysis on the effect of sham feeding in colorectal surgery, with a separate analysis on trials that used rapid postoperative feeding.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed were searched by using the terms gum OR sham feeding OR chew AND (colorect OR resect).
  
  
  METHODS
  All studies were randomized controlled trials (in any language) performed on adults, comparing standard care with gum chewing following colorectal resection. From 439 citations, 10 articles were included.
  
  
  METHODS
  The intervention was sham feeding by means of gum chewing.
  
  
  METHODS
  The outcome measures were time to return of flatus, time to first bowel movement, complication rates, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, and reoperation rates.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 612) were included. Sham feeding resulted in a reduction in time to flatus of 31 minutes (p = 0.003) and time to first bowel movement of 30 minutes (p = 0.05). Sham feeding also resulted in a reduction in length of stay by 0.5 days (p = 0.007), and a reduction in complication rates (relative risk = 0.687, p = 0.017), although this appeared to be associated with publication bias. Analysis of trials that used rapid postoperative feeding (n = 282) revealed no difference in postoperative GI function.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This review was limited by the heterogeneity of postoperative feeding regimes, in addition to limited reporting by trials of postoperative morbidity.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Sham feeding following colorectal surgery is safe, results in small improvements in GI recovery, and is associated with a reduction in the length of hospital stay. It confers no advantage if patients are placed on a rapid postoperative feeding regime.
authors: 1Department of Surgery, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia 2University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia 3Department of Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
authors: Yiu M
authors: YM
authors: Ho
authors: Stephen R
authors: SR
authors: Smith
authors: Peter
authors: P
authors: Pockney
authors: Patrick
authors: P
authors: Lim
authors: John
authors: J
authors: Attia
mesh_terms: D002638:Chewing Gum; D003082:Colectomy; D006801:Humans; D008409:Mastication; D015233:Models, Statistical; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010919:Placebos; D011182:Postoperative Care / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D020127:Recovery of Function
chemical_list: D002638:Chewing Gum; D010919:Placebos