ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of Early Versus Traditional Feeding Protocols in Elective Lower Segment Cesarean Sections.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Postoperative care following elective lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) traditionally involves delayed oral feeding. However, recent evidence suggests that early feeding may enhance recovery and improve patient outcomes. This study aimed to compare the recovery outcomes of elective LSCS patients between early feeding and traditional feeding protocols. Methods This prospective, comparative study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College (GMC) Budaun, over nine months. Women aged 18 to 40 years undergoing elective LSCS with singleton pregnancies and gestational ages between 37 and 42 weeks were included. Participants were randomized into two groups: the early feeding group (EFG) and the traditional feeding group (TFG). The EFG received oral intake as early as two hours post-surgery, progressing to a regular diet within six to eight hours. The TFG followed standard postoperative protocols, beginning oral intake after 12-24 hours. Primary outcomes included time to return of bowel function and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and complication rates. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), with p-values < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results The study included 94 participants (EFG: n = 44, TFG: n = 50). The EFG showed significantly faster return of bowel function, with time to first flatus (23.9 ± 6.2 vs. 34.1 ± 8.8 hours, p < 0.0001) and first stool (54.6 ± 8.5 vs. 91.3 ± 12.3 hours, p < 0.0001). Length of hospital stay was shorter in the EFG (4.3 ± 1.1 vs. 6.7 ± 1.4 days, p < 0.0001). Visual analog scale (VAS) scores before discharge were higher in the EFG (94.4 ± 8.7 vs. 81.4 ± 9.5, p < 0.0001), indicating greater patient satisfaction. Complication rates, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension, and wound infections, did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion Early feeding post-elective LSCS significantly enhances recovery, as evidenced by quicker return of bowel function, reduced hospital stay, and higher patient satisfaction without increasing complication rates. These findings support revising postoperative care protocols to incorporate early feeding strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.