Early versus Delayed Oral Feeding in Patients following Total Laryngectomy
Table 2
Summary of findings table: early oral feeding compared to delayed oral feeding for postoperative rehabilitation of total laryngectomy patients.
Early oral feeding compared to delayed oral feeding for postoperative rehabilitation of total laryngectomy patients
Patient or population: postoperative total laryngectomy patients
Settings: hospital
Intervention: early oral feeding
Comparison: delayed oral feeding
Outcomes
Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)
Relative effect (95% CI)
Number of participants (studies)
Quality of the evidence (grade)
Control group risk2
Corresponding risk
Delayed oral feeding
Early oral feeding
Mortality at 6 months Death rate Follow-up: mean 6 months
12 per 1000
4 per 1000 (1 to 26)
OR 0.26 (0.02 to 2.76)
393 (7 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low
1
Proportion of patients developing pharyngocutaneous fistula Clinical diagnosis of fistula Follow-up: median 6 months
99 per 1000
81 per 1000 (43 to 148)
RR 0.82 (0.44 to 1.50)
393 (7 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low
1
Pooled complications Clavien-Dindo grading Follow-up: median 6 months
286 per 1000
260 per 1000 (166 to 409)
RR 0.91 (0.58 to 1.43)
174 (4 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low
1
Postoperative hospital stay Days to discharge Follow-up: median 6 months
The mean postoperative hospital stay in the control groups was 14.34 days
The mean postoperative hospital stay in the intervention groups was 2.72 lower (5.34 to 0.09 lower)
149 (3 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low
1
The basis for the control risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio. Grade working group grades of evidence. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. High risk in all studies. Control group risk calculated from included control groups in studies.
