Liberal versus restrictive fluid management in abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study compared perioperative restrictive fluid therapy to liberal (conventional) fluid therapy in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery and investigated the rate of post-operative morbidity (complication rates), recovery (time to flatus), and the length of hospital stay.

METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched until June 18, 2015. Randomized controlled trials, two-arm prospective studies, and retrospective studies were included in our analyses. A sensitivity analysis, publication bias assessment, and quality assessment were performed.

RESULTS: The effects of the two therapies were similar in the subgroup analysis of patients who underwent hepato-gastroenterological surgery (P = 0.287). However, in a subgroup of patients who underwent vascular abdominal surgery, the restricted fluid treatment regimen was associated with a lower risk of complications in comparison with the conventional regimen (pooled OR = 0.12, 95 % CI 0.03-0.47, P = 0.002). There was no difference between the two regimens with respect to the incidence of cardiopulmonary complications (P = 0.733). However, the patients who received the restricted fluid treatment regimen had a shorter time to flatus (P = 0.031) and a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.033) than the patients who received the conventional regimen.

CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive fluid therapy and liberal conventional therapy were associated with similar rates of overall and cardiopulmonary complications; however, restrictive fluid therapy was associated with a more rapid recovery and a shorter length of hospital stay.