Skip to main content
Download PDF

Nomogram for prediction of prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal resection

BMC Cancer volume 22, Article number: 1273 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) is a major complication in patients undergoing colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to analyze the risk factors contributing to PPOI, and to develop an effective nomogram to determine the risks of this population.

Methods

A total of 1,254 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent radical colorectal resection at Fujian Cancer Hospital from March 2016 to August 2021 were enrolled as a training cohort in this study. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to determine the correlation between PPOI and clinicopathological characteristics. A nomogram predicting the incidence of PPOI was constructed. The cohort of 153 patients from Fujian Provincial Hospital were enrolled as a validation cohort. Internal and external validations were used to evaluate the prediction ability by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and a calibration plot.

Results

In the training cohort, 128 patients (10.2%) had PPOI after colorectal resection. The independent predictive factors of PPOI were identified, and included gender, age, surgical approach and intraoperative fluid overload. The AUC of nomogram were 0.779 (95% CI: 0.736–0.822) and 0.791 (95%CI: 0.677–0.905) in the training and validation cohort, respectively. The two cohorts of calibration plots showed a good consistency between nomogram prediction and actual observation.

Conclusions

A highly accurate nomogram was developed and validated in this study, which can be used to provide individual prediction of PPOI in patients after colorectal resection, and this predictive power can potentially assist surgeons to make the optimal treatment decisions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Postoperative ileus (POI) refers to a temporary impairment of gastrointestinal transit due to nonmechanical causes following surgery. As POI occurs in almost all patients following intra-abdominal surgery, especially major abdominal surgery, it may be considered as a normal physiologic response [1, 2]. Usually, it is resolved within 3 days, but may persist or reoccur, in which case it is termed prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) [3]. The point at which POI becomes PPOI has not been clearly established. Manifestations of PPOI are characterized as a variable mixture of nausea and vomiting, intolerance of oral diet, abdominal distension and delayed passage of flatus and stool. PPOI is one of the most common complications after colorectal surgery, with an incidence of 3–32% [4, 5]. The variability of reported incidences can be explained by absence of accurate classification criteria and heterogeneous definition of PPOI [6]. PPOI could result in a range of significant consequences, including nutritional deficiencies and the need for parenteral nutrition, increased length of stay, a significant fiscal burden and a negative impact on quality of life which is higher than with other postoperative morbidities [7, 8].

The Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program is an effective and safe protocol, and has been widely implemented in colorectal cancer surgery [9]. Early return of bowel function and prevention of PPOI are important items of clinical practice guidelines for ERAS in Elective Colorectal Surgery [10]. There is currently still a lack of effective treatment options for PPOI, and therefore, it is important to identify high-risk patients of PPOI, and allow early intervention with preventive strategies [11].

Nomogram is a popular and simple tool used to predict the probability of an individual's particular outcome, and has been frequently implemented in clinical practice [12, 13]. The aim of this study was to develop an effective nomogram for prediction of the occurrence of PPOI after colorectal resection.

Materials and methods

Patients

One thousand two hundred fifty-four patients hospitalized with colorectal cancer at Fujian Cancer Hospital from March 2016 to August 2021 were enrolled as a training cohort in this study. Patient data were retrospectively accessed from prospectively collected data recorded. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Pathologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the colorectum; (2) Elective radical operation; (3) Age ≥ 18 years. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Preoperative intestinal obstruction; (2) Unassessable on account of dementia or postoperative delirium; (3) Some complications considered to be the cause of PPOI, including postoperative anastomotic leakage, intraabdominal abscess and peritonitis.

One Hundred Fifty-three patients hospitalized at Fujian Provincial Hospital from June 2018 to September 2020 were retrospectively collected from the prospectively maintained institutional database as a validation cohort. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same as those for training cohort. The entire flowchart of the selection of patients was depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The flowchart of patient selection

Full size image

Enhanced recovery program

The ERAS program has been applied in the department of Gastrointestinal Surgery Oncology since November 2014, and has achieved remarkable results. Briefly, our ERAS protocol contains the following: (1) Preoperative period: Preadmission patient education and instruction; Nutritional evaluation and optimization; No routine use of mechanical bowel preparation; carbohydrate loading beverage 12 h and 2 h prior to general anesthesia. (2) Intraoperation period: Minimally invasive surgery is preferred; Intraoperative fluid restriction and avoidance of hypothermia; Nasogastric tubes and drains should be avoided when possible. (3) Postoperative period: Multimodal analgesia; Antiemetic prophylaxis; Early feeding and mobilization [14].

Definition

PPOI was defined in accordance with the systematic review and global survey by Vather et al. [15]. Specifically, PPOI was diagnosed if patients met ≥ 2 of the following five criteria on POD 4 (postoperative day 4) or later: (1) Nausea or vomiting over the preceding 12 h; (2) Inability to tolerate an oral diet over the prior 24 h; (3) Absence of flatus over the preceding 24 h; (4) Abdominal distention; (5) Radiologic confirmation.

Intraoperative fluid overload was defined as intraoperative fluid replacement ≥ 3 ml/kg/h for laparoscopy and 5 ml/kg/h for open surgery, excluding replacement of blood loss. These cutoffs were independent risk factors for PPOI, and have been identified as critical thresholds for complications in colorectal surgery [16,17,18].

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the adult population, patients were classified as having anaemia based on sex (< 12 g/dl for women, < 13 g/dl for men) [19]. Hypoalbuminaemia was defined as a serum albumin < 3.5 g/dl [20].

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables with normal distributions are presented as the mean ± SD, and were compared using Student’s t test; Continuous variables with non-normally distributed variables were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR), and were assessed with Mann–Whitney U tests. Categorical variables were shown as numbers and percentages. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate the best cut-off point of continuous variables. Univariate analysis was performed with a Chi-square test to compare categorical variables. Parameters with significance (p < 0.05 in univariate analysis) were selected into multiple logistic regression analysis. R software (version 4.1.1) was used to construct a nomogram based on multiple analysis. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to assess the performance of the nomogram. Calibration curves were plotted to compare the predicted probability of the nomogram with the actual probability, while the 45-degree line was used as the perfect model with 100% accuracy. External validation was performed based on the constructed nomogram by validation cohort. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test was used to assess the goodness-of-fit of the model. Statistical analyses were performed through SPSS 26.0 software. A two-tailed P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient characteristics and outcomes

One hundred twenty-eight patients (10.2%) and 14 patients (9.2%) in the training and validation cohort, respectively had PPOI after colorectal resection. No statistically significant differences in the baseline demographic and the clinicopathological characteristics of the patients were found between the two cohorts (P > 0.05), with the exception of hypertension (P = 0.027, Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of patients in the training and validation cohort
Full size table

Univariate and multivariate analysis of PPOI in the training cohort

Clinical characteristics, including gender, age, surgical approach, operation duration, intraoperative fluid overload, were significantly associated with PPOI after univariate analysis (p < 0.05, Table 2). Multivariate analysis showed that gender, age, surgical approach, intraoperative fluid overload, were independent predictive factors of PPOI (p < 0.05, Table 2).

Table 2 Univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression of clinicopathological variables associated with PPOI
Full size table

Construction of a nomogram for prediction of PPOI

The four variables that were finally determined to be significant in the multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to establish the intuitive nomogram model (Fig. 2). A total score is calculated by summing the scores for each variable, and the final predicted risk of PPOI is the corresponding probability of the total points of individual patients.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Nomogram to predict the probability of PPOI after colorectal resection. A straight line was drawn vertically from the axis of each variable toward the “Points”scale. The points for each variable were summed together to generate a total point score, which is projected on the bottom line to obtain the individual predictive risk of PPOI

Full size image

Validation of the nomogram

Internal validation was first performed in the training cohort. The AUC of the training cohort was 0.779 (95% CI: 0.736–0.822) (Fig. 3). A bootstrap resampling procedure was applied and a calibration curve was plotted (Fig. 4). There was good agreement between the predicted and observed probabilities. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test showed an excellent fit (χ2 = 5.459, p = 0.679).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The ROC curve (blue) of nomograms for PPOI in the training cohort

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Calibration plots of the nomogram in the training cohort. The apparent line represents actual nomogram performance. The bias-corrected line represents the bootstrap-corrected performance of the nomogram. The diagonal line is an ideal model, indicating 100% predictive power

Full size image

External validation was further performed in the validation cohort. The AUC was still as high as 0.791 (95%CI: 0.677–0.905) (Fig. 5). The nomogram calibration curve showed acceptable agreement between prediction and actual observation (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5
figure 5

The ROC curve (blue) of nomograms for PPOI in the validation cohort

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Calibration plots of the nomogram in the validation cohort. The bias-corrected line represents the bootstrap-corrected performance of the nomogram. The diagonal line is an ideal model, indicating 100% predictive power

Full size image

Discussion

In the present study, there was a 10.2% and 9.2% rate of PPOI in the training and validation cohort, respectively. This incidence was different from previous reports. Wolthuis et al. [3, 4] found the rate of PPOI was 15.9% after colorectal resection and Vather et al. [14] reported that PPOI occurred in 88 of 327 patients (26.9%) undergoing elective colorectal surgery [21]. Liang et al. [22] demonstrated that the overall PPOI rate was 21.5% in 311 patients diagnosed with gastric or colorectal cancer. The difference of incidence was possibly due to ERAS programs have been widely implemented in our study.

Statistically significant differences were found in hypertension between the training and validation cohorts, but hypertension itself was not found to be associated with PPOI. In general, baseline data were essentially balanced in the two cohorts. The AUC of the nomogram was 0.779 in the training. The calibration plots showed a good agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation, indicating that the model had a good diagnostic performance and an excellent calibration. In addition, the external validation of the nomogram showed a satisfactory outcome, which indicated that our nomogram could be used in various populations and clinical scenarios.

There is no consensus on the independent risk factors. We excluded the secondary PPOI resulting from postoperative anastomotic leakage, intraabdominal abscess and peritonitis [23, 24]. The use of opioid analgesics in the postoperative period was identified as an increased risk for PPOI [25, 26]. However, this information is not available pre/intraoperative and cannot contribute to the prediction model.

An age older than 65 years was identified as an independent risk factor for PPOI. This may be due to the fact that older individuals generally have more medical comorbidity and clinical frailty, and poorer nutritional and functional status compared with their younger counterparts [27]. Our result emphasizes that postoperative surveillance should be especially carefully achieved in such patients who have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality after colorectal cancer surgery [28].

The fact of male sex has also been shown to affect PPOI following colorectal resection. Consistent with the present study, some studies confirmed that the male sex was associated with increased risk of PPOI in elective colorectal surgery [23, 27,28,29]. This difference is explained by the narrower male pelvis which may make the surgery more difficult and challenging, and potentially secondary to the effects of estrogen and progesterone receptors throughout the gastrointestinal tract and differences in enteric nervous system signaling [17, 30].

Minimally invasive approaches include laparoscopic and robotic surgery. The advantages of robotic surgical systems such as superior instrumentatione and field of vision enable precise dissection in confined spaces such as the pelvis, allowing it to have rapidly gained acceptance in colorectal surgery [31]. The robotic surgical systems for the treatment of colorectal cancer were introduced into this hospital in 2020, but only a minority of patients have been treated with robotic surgery because of its high cost. Previous studies have shown that there are no significant differences between laparoscopic and robotic approaches to PPOI and perioperative mortality [32, 33]. Therefore, we combined laparoscopic and robotic surgery into one group in this study. The surgical approach was the strongest predictor of PPOI in our study. There is high-quality evidence supporting the routine use of a minimally invasive approach to patients with colorectal cancer. Compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery has shown better outcomes, including less postoperative pain, shorter time to flatus/bowel motion and oral nutrition, improved cosmesis, less intraoperative blood loss, reduced length of stay, improved cosmesis and similar long-term survival [34, 35].

Previous studies believed that adherence to judicious intra-operative fluid management protocols was protective against development of PPOI [16, 36]. Similarly, this study showed that intraoperative fluid overload was significantly associated with PPOI. This may be because hypervolemic management may result in electrolyte disturbances and splanchnic edema and increased abdominal pressure with decreased mesenteric blood flow, which in turn elicits disruptive tissue oxygenation and ultimately leads to prolongation of the recovery of bowel function [16].

We acknowledge that several limitations still existed in this study. Firstly, the compliance with the ERAS protocol elements cannot be evaluated as this is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data recorded. In addition, the compliance with the protocol has not been unified yet. To date, there are no prospective or clinical trials evaluating the grade of implementation of ERAS. Secondly, the nomogram was developed and validated in only two hospitals rather than multiple centers, thus potentially raising the likelihood of bias. Thirdly, several studies have shown preoperative gut microbiota may be used as biomarkers to predict the development of PPOI [37, 38]. Mucosal samples were not collected in this study, the relationship between them cannot be evaluated.

Conclusions

PPOI is a common complication after colorectal surgery. Our results have shown that gender, age, surgical approach and intraoperative fluid overload are significantly related to the risk of PPOI. The nomogram with these four factors can accurately predict the probability of PPOI and enable surgeons to guide clinical individualized activities.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed in this paper can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

PPOI:

Prolonged postoperative ileus

POI:

Postoperative ileus

ERAS:

Enhanced recovery after surgery

AUC:

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

IV:

Total intravenous

POD:

Postoperative day

IQR:

Interquartile ranges

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

References

  1. Wells CI, Milne TGE, Seo SHB, et al. Post-operative ileus: definitions, mechanisms and controversies. ANZ J Surg. 2022;92(1–2):62–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harnsberger CR, Maykel JA, Alavi K, et al. Postoperative Ileus. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2019;32(3):166–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolthuis AM, Bislenghi G, Lambrecht M, et al. Preoperative risk factors for prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(6):883–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wolthuis AM, Bislenghi G, Fieuws S, et al. Incidence of prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman SJ, Pericleous A, Downey C, et al. Postoperative ileus following major colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2018;105(7):797–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gero D, Gié O, Hübner M, et al. Postoperative ileus: in search of an international consensus on definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017;402(1):149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mao H, Milne TGE, O’Grady G, et al. Prolonged postoperative ileus significantly increases the cost of inpatient stay for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: Results of a multivariate analysis of prospective data at a single institution. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(5):631–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Peters EG, Pattamatta M, Smeets BJJ, et al. The clinical and economical impact of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020;32(8):e13862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ni X, Jia D, Chen Y, et al. Is the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program effective and safe in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(7):1502–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Hubner M, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations: 2018. World J Surg. 2019;43(3):659–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khawaja ZH, Gendia A, Adnan N, et al. Prevention and management of postoperative Ileus: a review of current practice. Cureus. 2022;14(2):e22652.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ma Y, Shi L, Lu P, et al. Creation of a novel nomogram based on the direct bilirubin-to-indirect bilirubin ratio and lactate dehydrogenase levels in resectable colorectal cancer. Front Mol Biosci. 2021;8:751506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim C, Kim WR, Kim KY, et al. Predictive nomogram for recurrence of stage I colorectal cancer after curative resection. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018;17(3):e513–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carmichael JC, Keller DS, Baldini G, et al. Clinical practice guideline for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc. 2017;31(9):3412–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vather R, Trivedi S, Bissett I. Defining postoperative ileus: results of a systematic review and global survey. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:962–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alhashemi M, Fiore JF, Safa N, et al. Incidence and predictors of prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery in the context of an enhanced recovery pathway. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(7):2313–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baldini G, Fawcett WJ. Anesthesia for colorectal surgery. Anesthesiol Clin. 2015;33:93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pecorelli N, Hershorn O, Baldini G, et al. Impact of adherence to care pathway interventions on recovery following bowel resection within an established enhanced recovery program. Surg Endosc. 2016;31:1760–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. WHO. Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity. Geneva: World Health Organistaion; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hu WH, Eisenstein S, Parry L, et al. Preoperative malnutrition with mild hypoalbuminemia associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity of colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching study. Nutr J. 2019;18(1):33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vather R, Josephson R, Jaung R, et al. Development of a risk stratification system for the occurrence of prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery: a prospective risk factor analysis. Surgery. 2015;157(4):764–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liang WQ, Zhang KC, Li H, et al. Preoperative albumin levels predict prolonged postoperative ileus in gastrointestinal surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(11):1185–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hwang GS, Hanna MH, et al. Risk factors for prolonged ileus following colon surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):603–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Koch KE, Hahn A, Hart A, et al. Male sex, ostomy, infection, and intravenous fluids are associated with increased risk of postoperative ileus in elective colorectal surgery. Surgery. 2021;170(5):1325–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rybakov EG, Shelygin YA, Khomyakov EA, et al. Risk factors for postoperative ileus after colorectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2017;09:16.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Liang WQ, Zhang KC, Cui JX, et al. Nomogram to predict prolonged postoperative ileus after gastrectomy in gastric cancer. World J Gastroentero. 2019;25(38):5838–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tamura K, Matsuda K, Fujita Y, et al. Optimal assessment of frailty predicts postoperative complications in older patients with colorectal cancer surgery. World J Surg. 2021;45(4):1202–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Souwer ETD, Bastiaannet E, Steyerberg EW, et al. A prediction model for severe complications after elective colorectal cancer surgery in patients of 70 years and older. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(13):3110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy MM, Tevis SE, Kennedy GD. Independent risk factors for prolonged postoperative ileus development. J Surg Res. 2016;201:279–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Courtot L, Le Roy B, Memeo R, et al. Risk factors for postoperative ileus following elective laparoscopic right colectomy: a retrospective multicentric study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018;33(10):1373–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shah MF, Nasir IUI, Parvaiz A. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. Visc Med. 2019;35(4):247–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Han C, Yan P, Jing W, et al. Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Asian J Surg. 2020;43(9):880–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu C, Li X, Wang Q, et al. Postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis of recently published studies. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(36):e27158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Skancke M, Schoolfield C, Umapathi B, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for rectal denocarcinoma shows promising outcomes compared to laparotomy, a national cancer database observational analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29(2):218–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gilmore B, Adam MA, Rhodin K, et al. Evolution of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: update from the national cancer database. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(1):275–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. VandeHei MS, Papageorge CM, Murphy MM, et al. The effect of perioperative fluid management on postoperative ileus in rectal cancer patients. Surgery. 2017;161(6):1628–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shogan BD, Chen J, Duchalais E, et al. Alterations of the rectal microbiome are associated with the development of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24(7):1663–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jin Y, Geng R, Liu Y, et al. Prediction of postoperative ileus in patients with colorectal cancer by preoperative gut microbiota. Front Oncol. 2020;10:526009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was supported by the Startup Fund for scientific research, Fujian Medical University (Grant number: 2018QH1231, 2020QH1226), Fujian Provincial Health Technology Project (Grant number: 2021TG015), Fujian Cancer Hospital Project (Grant number: 2021YN04, 2021YN16).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Zhenmeng Lin and Yangming Li contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgical Oncology, Clinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University & Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, 350014, Fujian Province, China

    Zhenmeng Lin, Yangming Li & Chunkang Yang

  2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgical Oncology, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China

    Jiansheng Wu

  3. Department of Anesthesiology Surgery, Clinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University & Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, 350014, Fujian Province, China

    Huizhe Zheng

Authors
  1. Zhenmeng Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yangming Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiansheng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huizhe Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chunkang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ZL and YL contributed to analysis data, secured funding and write the manuscript. Data collection was performed by JW. HZ review the manuscript. CY contributed to the conception, design. All authors read and proved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chunkang Yang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Fujian Cancer Hospital (NO. SQ2020-007–02). As this study was strictly retrospective and collecting the existing data, the informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of Fujian Cancer Hospital.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, Z., Li, Y., Wu, J. et al. Nomogram for prediction of prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal resection. BMC Cancer 22, 1273 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10377-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10377-x

Keywords

  • Resection
  • Prolonged postoperative ileus
  • Nomogram
  • Risk factor

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us