Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12615000430538
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
21/04/2015
Date registered
6/05/2015
Date last updated
10/11/2015
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Effect of Gum Chewing on Postoperative Recovery of Gut Function:
A Randomised Controlled Trial
Query!
Scientific title
In early postoperative patients who had undergone elective bowel resection, does chewing sugar-free gum for 15 minutes 4 times a day, reduce the duration of ileus, improve patient experience and reduce length of hospital stay.
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
286549
0
Nil
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Nil
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Postoperative ileus
294795
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Surgery
295070
295070
0
0
Query!
Other surgery
Query!
Oral and Gastrointestinal
295071
295071
0
0
Query!
Normal oral and gastrointestinal development and function
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Duration of treatment: The treatment commenced as soon a practicable following bowel surgery which was usually when they were admitted to the colorectal ward. Participants in the chewing gum group were asked to chew gum for 15 minutes, four times a day, for up to 14 days following their operation, or until a normal bowel motion had occurred and the participant was able to tolerate a normal full diet for 24 hours, whichever occurred earlier.
Strategies to monitor adherence to the intervention: Chewing gum was prescribed on the patient’s medication chart and administered by nurses as any other tablet or intravenous medication.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
291655
0
Treatment: Other
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Both study groups received the same postoperative care. In general, patients were permitted sips of fluids on the day of surgery. They were progressed to a fluid diet the following day and depending on their progress and the instruction of their treating surgeon. Postoperatively patients were commenced on intravenous fentanyl or morphine patient controlled analgesia, in addition to regular intravenous or oral paracetamol. When tolerating oral intake, patients were transferred to oxycodone or codeine.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
294835
0
Primary Outcome 1: time to discharge (length of stay [LOS])
Query!
Assessment method [1]
294835
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
294835
0
The "Length of Stay" was measured in hours from the start time of surgery until the time of hospital discharge.
Query!
Primary outcome [2]
294862
0
Primary Outcome 2: time to first flatus
Method of Assessment: A treating nurse completed a paper based CRF (case report form) until the patient was discharged from hospital or until a normal bowel motion had occurred and they were able to tolerate a normal full diet for 24hrs, whichever occurs earlier. This CRF recorded the patients’ time to passing first flatus, time to passing first bowel motion, as well as daily documentation of the patients reported pain score and their daily medications. This data was reported or observed by the patients and recorded by the treating nurse.
Query!
Assessment method [2]
294862
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
294862
0
This timepoint was measured in hours from the start time of surgery until the time of first flatus.
Query!
Primary outcome [3]
294863
0
Primary outcome 3: time to first bowel motion
Method of Assessment: A treating nurse completed a paper based CRF (case report form) until the patient was discharged from hospital or until a normal bowel motion had occurred and they were able to tolerate a normal full diet for 24hrs, whichever occurs earlier. This CRF recorded the patients’ time to passing first flatus, time to passing first bowel motion, as well as daily documentation of the patients reported pain score and their daily medications. This data was reported or observed by the patients and recorded by the treating nurse.
Query!
Assessment method [3]
294863
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
294863
0
This timepoint was measured in hours from the start time of surgery until the time of first bowel motion (faeces).
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
314238
0
Secondary Outcome 1: complications rates
Intra-operative complications:
Adverse anaesthetic event
Haemorrhage
Minor injury to small intestine or colon
Major injury to small intestine or colon
Ureteric injury
Duodenal injury
Gas embolus
Pneumothorax
Hypercarbial / acidosis
Early post-operative complications:
Pyrexia
Prolonged ileus
Recurrent ileus
Pulmonary retention
Urinary retention
UTI (urinary tract infection)
Wound infection
Abdominal sepsis
Anastomotic leak
Haemorrhage
Reoperation
Anaesthetic complication
Medical complication
ICU
NG tube:
Intra-op
Post-op
Re-insertion
Query!
Assessment method [1]
314238
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
314238
0
The patient's medical records were reviewed by the study co-ordinator at the time of discharge and the type of complication is recorded on a data collection sheet to calculate the rate of complications in both groups, that is, the chewing gum group and non-chewing gum group.
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
314239
0
Secondary outcome 2: pain
Method of Assessment: A treating nurse completed a paper based CRF (case report form) until the patient was discharged from hospital or until a normal bowel motion had occurred and they were able to tolerate a normal full diet for 24hrs, whichever occurs earlier.
This CRF recorded the patients’ reported pain score, 0-10, where 10 was the worst pain. This data was reported by the patient verbally and recorded by the treating nurse.
Query!
Assessment method [2]
314239
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
314239
0
Daily until the patient was discharged from hospital or until a normal bowel motion had occurred and they were able to tolerate a normal full diet for 24hrs, whichever occurs earlier.
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
314240
0
Secondary outcome 3: total morphine equivalent
The patient's medical records were reviewed by the study co-ordinator at the time of discharge. Medications together with dosage were recorded on a data collection sheet to calculate the daily total medication morphine equivalents given to patients in both the chewing gum group and non-chewing gum group.
Query!
Assessment method [3]
314240
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
314240
0
Up to and including 7 days post-operation.
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
All adult patients from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney undergoing elective open abdominal or pelvic surgery involving bowel resection.
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
Known swallowing difficulties
Risk of aspiration
Planned stoma
Cognitive impairment
Unable to give informed consent
English illiterate
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Initial contact with the patient was made by the consulting surgeon and after informed consent was given, patients were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups, a ‘chewing gum group’ or a ‘non-chewing gum group’. Randomisation was done by the study coordinator using a chart of randomised numbers.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Computer generated random sequence, sealed envelopes with treatment allocation.
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
The hypothesis for this study was that chewing gum reduces time to discharge, time to first flatus and time to first bowel motion.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 20.0 (IBM, USA). Patients were analysed in the study group to which they were randomised in accordance with intention to treat principles. The level of significance for all tests was set to p < 0.05. Comparisons between study groups were analysed using the independent T-test for continuous data that were normally distributed and appropriate non parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U) for skewed data. Categorical data was analysed using a combination of Chi-square tests and Fisher’s exact tests (FET). Mean and medians are reported alongside the standard deviation (SD), inter quartile range (IQR) or 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate.
Kaplan-Meier and Cox Regression analysis was used to describe time to event data. Length of stay was measured in hours from the start time of surgery until the time of discharge. Flatus and bowel follow up times were measured in hours from the time the procedure ended to the time of the event, or the time of last follow up (time of discharge) if the event did not occur. The Log-rank test was used to determine statistical significance between curves. Survival is reported alongside a standard error (SE). Adjustment was made for any procedure detail that was considered to be strong clinical predictor of the outcome (surgery type).
Sample size
A total sample size of 162 participants (81 in each arm) was calculated. This represented the minimum number required based on the average length of post-operative stay being 5 days and a clinically meaningful reduction determined as a minimum of 2 days. Power was set at 90% with a 5% significance level. The PS (Power and Sample size) program was utilised to derive this sample size estimation.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
24/02/2010
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
12/03/2013
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
162
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
162
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
3719
0
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital - Camperdown
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
9542
0
2050 - Camperdown
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
291134
0
Hospital
Query!
Name [1]
291134
0
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
- Colorectal Department
Query!
Address [1]
291134
0
Missenden Road
Camperdown NSW 2050
Query!
Country [1]
291134
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Hospital
Query!
Name
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Query!
Address
Missenden Road
Camperdown NSW 2050
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
289814
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
289814
0
Query!
Address [1]
289814
0
Query!
Country [1]
289814
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
292711
0
Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone)
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
292711
0
Research Development Office Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Missenden Road Camperdown NSW 2050
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
292711
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
292711
0
Query!
Approval date [1]
292711
0
10/11/2009
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
292711
0
HREC/09/RPAH/564
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Postoperative ileus (gut stasis) is a common event seen in patients following major surgery involving bowel resection, contributing to significant postoperative morbidity including delayed resumption of nutritional feeding, patient discomfort, prolonged hospitalisation and increased healthcare cost. The economic impact of postoperative ileus in patients following colectomy is estimated at approximately 1 billion US dollars per year in the United States alone (1). Current management is largely supportive with no widely accepted treatment found to be effective in reducing the period of ileus in postoperative patients. Given the scale of potential benefit, the main aim was to conduct a well-constructed trial involving an adequate number of patients to determine whether gum chewing in the early postoperative period does help to reduce duration of ileus, improve patient experience and decrease length of hospital stay. Reference (1): Schuster R, Grewal N, et al. Gum Chewing Reduces Ileus After Elective Open Sigmoid Colectomy. Arch Surg. 2006 Feb; 141(2): 174-6
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
56610
0
A/Prof Chris Byrne
Query!
Address
56610
0
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital,
Colorectal Research Department,
Missenden Road,
Camperdown NSW 2050
Query!
Country
56610
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
56610
0
+61, 2, 9519 7576
Query!
Fax
56610
0
+61, 2, 9519 1806
Query!
Email
56610
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
56611
0
Chris Byrne
Query!
Address
56611
0
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital,
Colorectal Research Department,
Missenden Road,
Camperdown NSW 2050
Query!
Country
56611
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
56611
0
+61, 2, 9519 7576
Query!
Fax
56611
0
+61, 2, 9519 1806
Query!
Email
56611
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
56612
0
Chris Byrne
Query!
Address
56612
0
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital,
Colorectal Research Department,
Missenden Road,
Camperdown NSW 2050
Query!
Country
56612
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
56612
0
+61, 2, 9519 7576
Query!
Fax
56612
0
+61, 2, 9519 1806
Query!
Email
56612
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF