Impact of Early Postoperative Enteral Feeding on Hospital Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Colonic Surgery: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Early feeding within 24 hours of intestinal surgery seems advantageous in terms of reduction of wound infection, pneumonia and length of hospital stay. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of early enteral nutrition in length of hospital stay in comparison to traditional postoperative feeding regimen. Method: This prospective study enrolled 95 patients randomized in two groups: control group patients receive enteral feeding in absence of nausea or vomiting, abdominal distension and after passage of flatus or stools, while patients in experimental group were fed a liquid diet within 12 hours of surgery, followed by a regular diet at the next meal. The primary endpoint was the impact of early oral feeding on hospital length of stay. The secondary endpoint was to measure the impact of the diet reintroduction modality on the incidence of early postoperative morbidity and return of bowel function. Result: Length of hospital stay was slightly diminished in the experimental group compared to control (8.78 ± 3.85 versus 9.41 ± 5.22), but the difference was not statistically significant. Postoperative nausea and vomiting were reported in 24 (51.0%) patients in experimental group and 30 (62.5%) in control group. Only one patient required nasogastric tube insertion. The majority of patients did not demonstrate any postoperative morbidity in both groups. Conclusion: Early enteral nutrition is safe after intestinal surgery. However we did not demonstrate that early enteral feeding diminished length of hospital stay or hastened the return of bowel function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".