ERNICA Evidence-Based Guideline on Surgical Aspects of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Premature Neonates

Neonatology Guidelines Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 Received: July 19, 2024 Accepted: October 29, 2024 Published online: November 19, 2024 European Reference Network for Inherited and Congenital Anomalies Evidence-Based Guideline on Surgical Aspects of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Premature Neonates Jan Hulscher a Willemijn Irvine b, c Andrea Conforti d Antonio Di Cesare e Martina Ichino e Rony Sfeir f Omid Madadi Sanjani g Joanna Strohm h Maria Hukkinen i Laura Moschino j Lorenzo Norsa k Alena Kokešovál Roel Bakx m Elisabeth Kooi n Sylvia Obermann-Borst o Elena Palleri p Marijn Vermeulen q Marie Spruce r Udo Rolle s Marc Miserez t Irene de Haro Jorge u Claudia Keyzer-Dekker b Francesco Fascetti Leon v Iris den Uijl b Simon Eaton w Carmen Mesas Burgos x aDivision of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; cDepartment of Evidence Based Medicine and Methodology, Qualicura HealthcareSupport Agency, Breda, The Netherlands;dDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, Italy;eDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy;fDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France;gDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany;hDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany;iSection of Pediatric Surgery, New Children’s Hospital, University of Helsinkiand Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland;jDepartment of Neonatology, Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova, Padua, Italy;kPediatric Department, Vittore Buzzi Children’s Hospital University of Milan, Milan, Italy;lDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic;mDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Amsterdam Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;nDepartment of Neonatology, University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands;oCare4Neo, Neonatal Patient and Parent Advocacy Organization, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;pDepartment of Neonatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden;qDepartment of Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care, Erasmus Medical Center Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;rNEC UK Representative, Ruislip, UK;sDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany;tDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium;uDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona Children’s Hospital, Barcelona, Spain;vDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova, Padua, Italy;wDepartment of Developmental Biology and Cancer, UCL GOS Institute of Child Health, London, UK;xDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden Keywords Guideline · Necrotizing enterocolitis · Premature · Surgical management · European Reference Network for Inherited and Congenital Anomalies Abstract Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a severe intestinal condi- tion primarily affecting preterm neonates. It has a high mortality rate, particularly in infants with a birthweight of karger@karger.com www.karger.com/neo © 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel Correspondence to: Jan Hulscher, j.b.f.hulscher @ umcg.nl This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY) (http://www.karger.com/Services/ OpenAccessLicense). Usage, derivative works and distribution are permitted provided that proper credit is given to the author and the original publisher. Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 below 1,500 g or for those requiring surgical intervention. The European Reference Network for Inherited and Con- genital Anomalies (ERNICA) has developed a clinical practice guideline to aid clinical decision-making pertaining to the surgical treatment and management of NEC in preterm neonates. This guideline was developed in accordance with the Guidelines 2.0 checklist and GRADE methodology. A multidisciplinary group of Europe ’s top experts collaborated with patient representatives to develop this guideline. After selecting critical points in care for which recommendations are required, a systematic review of the literature and critical appraisal of the evidence was performed. The Evidence to Decision framework was used as a guide to structure the consensus meetings and draft the recommendations. The panel developed seven recommendations and three good practice statements on the following topics: indications for surgery, peritoneal drainage, surgical technique, manage- ment of extensive NEC, enteral feeding, and neuro- developmental outcomes in premature neonates with NEC. The certainty of evidence was graded as (very) low for most recommendations. However, the panel weighed up the benefits and harms in light of all relevant arguments and expert opinion. This guideline provides recommendations on caring for premature neonates with NEC. These rec- ommendations can assist clinicians in their care decisions and can inform families on treatment options and relevant considerations. This guideline will be revised every 5 years to ensure it remains up to date. © 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel Introduction Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a severe intestinal disease, with a mortality rate of around 25% for all patients with confirmed NEC. Mortality rates are rising for patients with a birthweight of below 1,500 g (30%) and for patients requiring surgical intervention (35%) [1]. NEC mainly affects very preterm infants and/or infants with an extremely low birthweight. The lower the gestational age, the higher the risk of both NEC and complicated NEC (de fined as NEC re- quiring surgery for survival). About fifteen percent of all neonates born with a gestational age <26 weeks develop NEC [1]. The European Reference Network for Inherited and Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA) is the ERN for rare inherited and congenital digestive disorders, including NEC. To the best of our knowledge, there are no sys- tematically developed guidelines to assist clinical decision- making for NEC. We therefore aimed to develop such a guideline for the treatment of (surgical) NEC, speci fically for preterm neonates with a confirmed diagnosis (based on clinical symptoms and/or pneumatosis intestinalis on imaging, Modified Bell’sc l a s s ification stage IIa and higher [2]) This guideline aims to answer important questions concerning the surgical treatment, management, and prognosis of preterm neonates with a NEC diagnosis. In doing so, it aims to support healthcare providers and parents to make informed decisions about the care for these babies while simultaneously highlighting evidence gaps and promoting a research agenda. We aim to set a standard for treatment and care pathways, to bene fit preterm neonates with NEC requiring surgery, both in the short and long term. NEC in neonates born at term is not considered part of this guideline, nor is NEC prevention or diagnosis. Materials and Methods This guideline was developed in accordance with the Guidelines 2.0 checklist [3] and GRADE methodology [4, 5]. The supplementary materials include a full de- scription of the methods (online suppl. S1; for all online suppl. material, see https://doi.org/10.1159/000542540) that were applied to develop this guideline, as well as all Evidence to Decision (EtD) tables (online suppl. S2). The guideline development group (GDG) met on several occasions to (1) prioritize and select questions and critical outcomes, (2) discuss results of the literature review and (3) discuss recommendations according to the EtD framework. Using a shortened Delphi procedure the GDG selected 8 key questions and outcomes of interest to be addressed in this guideline, shown in Table 1. The EtD framework was used as a guide to structure a 2 day consensus meeting, with most mem- bers of the GDG present. During this meeting, con- siderations, recommendations, and research needs emerging from the literature analysis were discussed. To prepare for this meeting, a summary of findings from all modules was distributed among GDG members. This was accompanied by an electronic survey seeking input on all aspects of the EtD framework (Panel Voice). The GDG selected a recommendation strength between Strong or Conditional and indicated whether they supported (for) or opposed (against) an intervention (shown in Table 2). In accordance with the GRADE methodology, a low “cer- tainty” of evidence did not preclude a strong recommen- dation, and a weak recommendation was also possible with a high certainty of evidence. The strength of the recom- mendation was always determined by weighing up all relevant arguments. 2 Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 Hulscher et al. Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 Results All recommendations are shown in Table 3. Full EtD tables can be found in the online supplementary materials (S2). Revisions of this guideline will be scheduled every 5 years following the ERNICA protocol for revising guidelines. All recommendations can be considered valid until revised. Module 1 – Indications for Surgery Recommendation  The panel suggests not to interpret the presence of a fixed bowel loop (as a single parameter) as an absolute indication for surgery, but instead consider the presence of a fixed bowel loop in combination with other factors. Evidence summary: One retrospective study on the prevalence of fixed bowel loop in 38 NEC patients, and its relationship with the type of treatment (surgical versus conservative) and death was retrieved [6]. No signi ficant differences between patients with or without a fixed bowel loop were found and the certainty of evidence was rated ‘very low’. No articles were found eligible to analyze clinical deterioration while receiving intensive medical care or the presence of portal air as an indication for surgery. Considerations and Justi fication: Despite the absence of RCTs, the available evidence suggests that both the inter- v e n t i o na n dt h ec o m p a r i s o ny i e l ds i m i l a ro u t c o m e s .H o w - ever, given that surgery is more invasive and carries a higher risk of side effects, the panel concluded that the balance of effects likely favors the comparison. Based on the current evidence, it appears that the presence of a fixed bowel loop alone may not be a definitive indication for surgery. Issuing a firm recommendation for the intervention is likely not feasible due to varying expert experiences and the lack of clear evidence favoring one approach over the other. Module 2 – Peritoneal Drainage or Laparotomy Recommendations  The panel suggests to choose either initial laparotomy or initial drainage to treat patients with suspected or confirmed perforation due to NEC, based on preferences and experiences of the treatment center.  The panel suggests peritoneal drainage as a bridge treatment in cases where early operation is not possible or available.  The panel recommends that families of the patients should always be adequately informed that if drainage is chosen as the primary option, many patients will not improve or will deteriorate and subsequently require a laparotomy. Good practice statement  As many patients will require subsequent laparotomy if primary drainage is chosen, a pediatric surgeon should be consulted and the patient should always be transferred to an expert center. Evidence summary: Two RCTs comparing initial drainage to initial laparotomy with a total of 212 patients Table 1. Key questions addressed in this guideline Module Key question 1 Should (1) fixed bowel loop, (2) worsening clinical condition despite maximal conservative treatment, or (3) portal air be considered an indication for surgery in premature neonates with NEC? 2 Should the patients with surgical NEC be treated with a peritoneal drain instead of a laparotomy? Should peritoneal drain placement be used as a bridge to laparotomy in patients with surgical NEC? 3 Should preterm neonates with NEC in need of bowel resection be treated with primary anastomosis or enterostomy? 4 What are the (un)favorable effects of laparotomy with resection of all necrotic bowel in neonates with a large part of the small bowel affected and ultrashort bowel remaining? 5 In preterm neonates with con firmed NEC treated surgically, what are the (un)favorable effects of early feeding (≤7 days after surgery) compared to late feeding ( ≥8 days after surgery)? 6 Is surgical NEC in very preterm infants a prognostic factor for worse neurodevelopment? Surgical NEC Guidelines Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 3 Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 Table 2. Types of recommendations and their wording Type of recommendation Wording Strong recommendations against the intervention The panel recommends against, not to/to refrain from Conditional/weak recommendation against the intervention The panel suggests against, not to/to refrain from Conditional/weak recommendation for either the intervention or the comparison The panel suggests either ... or... Conditional/weak recommendation for the intervention The panel suggests ... Strong recommendation for the intervention The panel recommends ... Table 3. Summary of recommendations Module Recommendation Type Certainty of evidence 1 The panel suggests not to interpret the presence of a fixed bowel loop as single parameter as an indication for surgery but to consider the presence of a fixed bowel loop in combination with other factors Conditional Very low 2 The panel suggests to choose either initial laparotomy or initial drainage to treat patients with suspected or con firmed perforation due to NEC based on preferences and experiences of the treatment center Conditional Low The panel suggests peritoneal drainage as a bridge treatment in cases where direct operation is not possible or available Conditional Low Good practice statement –– The panel recommends that families of the patients should always be adequately informed that if drainage is chosen as the primary option, many patients will not improve or will deteriorate and subsequently require a laparotomy Good practice statement –– As many patients will require subsequent laparotomy if primary drainage is chosen, a pediatric surgeon should be consulted and the patient should always be transferred to an expert center 3 The panel suggests to consider a primary anastomosis if the baby is stable and the remaining bowel is either unaffected or perfused well enough to attempt primary anastomosis, especially in the setting of a threatening short bowel Conditional Very low 4 Good practice statement –– The decision to continue surgical treatment or to offer comfort care, is up to the treating team to decide but should not be based on the length of the bowel alone. All important factors need to be taken into account, also that there are many uncertainties concerning the long-term outcome of these patients 5 The panel suggests to start enteral feeding within 7 days after surgery for NEC in patients without active signs of ongoing disease or obstruction, with or without stoma Conditional Very low 6 The panel recommends to include information on the neurodevelopmental prognosis alongside other factors relevant to the patient when counseling on care decisions such as surgery for NEC in preterm infants Strong Low Extreme low birthweight and/or (need for) surgical intervention seem to be factors that further increase the risk for neurodevelopmental disability and impaired quality of life. This should be considered when providing information on neurodevelopmental prognosis Strong Low 4 Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 Hulscher et al. Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 were included [7, 8]. Laparotomy seemed to result in fewer deaths compared to primary drainage, but results were not statistically signi ficant. No signi ficant differences were found in complications or neurodevelopment. Despite the inclusion of two RCTs, the certainty of evidence for mortality was rated as low as there were strong concerns regarding selection bias and imprecision. The certainty of evidence for the other outcomes was rated as moderate. Considerations and Justification: Starting the treatment strategy with a peritoneal drainage seems to be as effective as the laparotomy when it comes to survival of the patient. A third trial which was initially excluded because of the population included (NEC as well as spontaneous intestinal perforation patients) was considered but also did not show a significant difference [9]. The panel recognized both as viable options for patients with NEC. However, it was recognized that many of the patients who received primary drainage had a subsequent laparotomy and a secondary laparotomy was significantly more frequent in the primary drainage group compared to the primary laparotomy group [7]. However, drainage is less invasive, may have the ad- vantage of immediate decompression, and may prevent exposure to general anesthesia in at least some of the pa- tients. No studies that explored drainage as a bridging treatment could be included. The aim of these studies was to compare drainage and laparotomy as primary interven- tions. However, since the mortality rates do not seem to differ, even after secondary laparotomy, these conclusions could support the idea of peritoneal drain placement as bridge treatment. The panel emphasized that the downsides of a drain (high possibility of needing a second intervention due to further deterioration of the patient or a lack of improvement) should always be considered and discussed with the family. As the analyzed studies only included patients based on pneumoperitoneum or pneumatosis in- testinalis, we did not gain any insight into the role of drainage versus laparotomy in patients with a surgical in- dication due to deteriorating clinical or biochemical status. Module 3 – Surgical Technique Recommendation  The panel suggests considering a primary anastomosis if the baby is stable and the remaining bowel is either unaffected or perfused well enough to attempt primary anastomosis, especially in the case of a threatening short bowel. Evidence summary : Four studies with a total of 239 patients have been evaluated to explore the effect of bowel resection and enterostomy versus resection and primary anastomosis on mortality, NEC-related complications, NEC recurrence, and neurodevelopmental outcomes [10–13]. There were no signi ficant differences in mor- tality or NEC recurrence, but intelligence at the age of 6–13 years was lower in children that were treated with enterostomy. The panel could not draw a conclusion on the effect of surgical techniques on the number of complications as only two small retrospective studies could be included, and their results were con flicting. The certainty of evidence for all conclusions is very low, mainly due to the retrospective design of the studies included. Considerations and Justi fication: Compared to pri- mary anastomosis, enterostomy creation warrants a second procedure for stoma closure. Undergoing only one as opposed to two surgical procedures is bene ficial in order to avoid possible (serious) adverse events, risks related to anesthesia or prolonged hospital stay. The choice of surgical method should occur during lapa- rotomy and depends on the stability of the baby, bowel viability, degree of contamination, and the extent of the resection. In addition, the personal experience of the operating surgeon may in fluence this decision. Primary anastomosis may not be feasible for some patients, but the panel concluded that if only one operation can achieve similar or better long-term outcomes, this probably has an advantage over two operations. Panel members further discussed situations or factors that could mean certain “subgroups ” of patients bene fit more from the recommendation than others. Even though we found no evidence to support this, experts on the panel agreed that in the case of threatening short bowel, considering primary anastomosis is highly valuable (if feasible). Module 4 – Extensive NEC Good practice statement  The decision to continue surgical treatment or to offer comfort care is up to the treating team to decide, but should not be based on the length of the bowel alone. All important factors need to be taken into account, as well as the uncertainty concerning the long-term outcomes for these patients. Surgical NEC Guidelines Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 5 Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 Evidence summary: No evidence could be included for analysis. Considerations and Justi fication:T h ep a n e lf o u n di t difficult to de fine a grade of bowel affection severity in- dicating a withdrawal of care. Ethical considerations arise for disease progressions ranging from NEC-totalis or near- totalis to <30 cm of remaining bowel [14 –16]. It remains undetermined if there is also an association between the length of the necrotic bowel and (neurodevelopmental) outcome if the patient survives surgery. Evidence that even <30 cm of the remaining small intestine may allow for parenteral nutrition weaning is increasing, and some authors suggest post-NEC patients have a greater weaning potential than those with short bowel syndrome arising from other causes [17]. Therefore, the panel agrees that the bowel length cannot solely be used to make a decision on whether to continue treatment. Module 5 – Enteral Feeding Recommendation  The panel suggests to start enteral feeding within 7 days after surgery for NEC in patients without active signs of ongoing disease or obstruction, with or without a stoma. Evidence summary: Two studies with a total of 187 patients with surgical NEC were analyzed [18, 19]. There are no differences in regard to mortality, NEC recurrence, or strictures between groups that had an early re- introduction and later reintroduction of enteral feeding. Despite a very low certainty of evidence, we found indi- cations that patients with surgical NEC that have an early reintroduction of feeding are less likely to need parenteral nutrition at 28 days and have shorter hospital stays. Considerations and Justi fication: The possible bene fits of early reintroduction of feeding after medical surgery for NEC may be large, despite low evidence quality. Panel members agree that adequate nutrition supports normal brain development. Additionally, they also recognize that earlier enteral feeding is possibly bene ficial for the de- velopment of the bowel (even if via nasogastric tube) and may prevent oral aversion. No undesirable effects of early feeding were detected in the evaluation of evidence; however, long-term effects were not considered in these studies. The decrease length of hospital stay for the early feeding groups could lead to large cost savings for hos- pitals. If earlier feeding does not lead to any disadvantage, a recommendation in favor of early feeding for medical NEC could make it accessible for more patients, thereby increasing equity. Module 6 – Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Recommendations  Extreme low birthweight and/or the (need for) surgical intervention seem to be factors that further increase the risk for neurodevelopmental disability and impaired quality of life. This should be considered when providing information on neurodevelopmental prognosis.  The panel recommends to include information on the neurodevelopmental prognosis alongside other factors relevant to the patient when counseling on care decisions such as surgery for NEC in preterm infants. Good practice statement  The panel recommends to closely follow-up these patients with regard to their neurodevelopment. Evidence summary: The panel analyzed six studies reporting on neurodevelopment after surgery for NEC [20–24] and performed a subgroup analysis for neonates with a birthweight ≤750 g [25, 26]. Where possible, surgical NEC patients were compared to peers with medical NEC and premature neonates without NEC. Compared to peers without NEC, surgical NEC patients seem to have lower scores on mental development and psychomotor development tests at 18 –24 months of age and at cognitive tests at school age. It is unclear if patients with surgical NEC have impaired mental and psycho- motor development compared to peers with medical NEC as the results of studies in the analysis were con flicting. It is likely that neonates with a birthweight of ≤750 g who survived surgery for NEC are at higher risk for any severe or moderate neurodevelopmental disability, severe mental developmental delay, and severe psychomotor delay at 18 –24 months old compared to peers with medical NEC and peers without a history of NEC. Considerations and Justi fication: For the analysis without weight as a cut-off, the overall certainty of evi- dence is low. Evidence levels were rated as low because of the inconsistency and lack of correction for important 6 Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 Hulscher et al. Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 confounders, such as intra-ventricular hemorrhages during NICU stay. The body of evidence for the subgroup of neonates with a birthweight of ≤750 g was low due to concerns regarding the correction for confounders; many but not all important confounders were included in the corrected analysis. Despite the limitations in regard to the quality of this evidence, panel members believe that this information on neurodevelopmental prognosis should be part of providing complete information to families and should not be left out. The importance families and physicians attach to neurodevelopmental outcomes will likely be different for different people in different countries. This may be strongly in fluenced by personal, cultural, social, and religious factors. Therefore, the panel does not provide a recommendation on care decisions based on this prognostic factor but wants to emphasize the importance of taking this prognostic factor into consideration during counseling. Discussion This guideline aimed to provide answers to seven prominent clinical questions and form recommendations to optimize the care for neonates with NEC. Seven rec- ommendations and three good practice statements were developed. These recommendations can assist clinicians in their care decisions and can inform families on the treatment options and relevant considerations. As in other rare diseases, the available evidence on NEC is scarce and of poor quality. Almost all of the included studies have major methodological limitations. Some of these may be induced by the context of the disease, others by poor methodological design. As a consequence, the average certainty of evidence of the included studies is “low” to “very low. ” This leaves the panel with very little certainty over the conclusion and with minimal evidence-based input for recommenda- tions. In five of our six modules, the evidence quality was considered too low for the panel to be con fident enough to make strong recommendations. This is recognized as a limitation for the applicability of evidence-based guide- line development methods in rare diseases. Besides the aforementioned limitations, there are also considerable strengths of this guideline, particularly falling within the AGREE II domains “rigor of devel- opment” and “stakeholder involvement. ” Despite little available and low-quality evidence for most questions, the EtD framework was applied and offered structure to the discussion. The combination of digital surveys and live discussion facilitated a critical assessment of the available evidence and its possible implications for clinical practice. As the digital surveys prior to the consensus meeting enabled all panel members to comment on the different aspects of the EtD, even those who could not be present at the meeting. A large group of Europe ’s top experts was closely involved in all steps of the process and was composed of pediatric surgeons, neonatologists, gastroenterologists, and patient/family representatives. A draft version of this guideline was circulated within ERNICA for peer review and key experts beyond Europe were invited to participate in this review as well. Altogether, this led to a set of balanced recommendations which were validated by a large, varied group of experts. Despite a full systematic review of the literature and a rigorous methodological approach to development, sev- eral questions remain unanswered. To allow for con- tinuous quality improvement in the care of premature neonates with NEC, the panel identi fied research pri- orities. Among other things, these research priorities include reaching a formal consensus on the de finition of clinical deterioration (despite maximum conservative treatment) and the establishment of a European feeding protocol for NEC patients. Supplement 3 contains an overview of all identi fied knowledge gaps and research priorities. To allow for continuous quality improvement of NEC care, ERNICA will add NEC to the European Pediatric Surgery Audit (EPSA). Conclusion This guideline provides recommendations on indica- tions for surgery, peritoneal drainage, surgical techniques, extensive NEC, enteral feeding and neurodevelopment in premature neonates with NEC. These recommendations can assist clinicians in their care decisions and can inform families on treatment options and relevant consider- ations. This guideline will be revised every 5 years to ensure it remains up to date. Acknowledgments The authors want to acknowledge the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Unit at the Canary Islands (SESCS) for their assistance with the systematic review and Neena Modi (Professor in Neonatal Medicine, Imperial College London, UK), David Hackam (Pediatric Surgeon, Johns Hopkins Children ’s Center, Baltimore, MD, USA), Ruth Del Río Florentino (Neonatologist, Hospital S Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain), Jordi Prat Ortells (Pediatric Surgeon, Hospital S Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain), Giovanna Verlato (Neonatologist, Hospital of Padova, Padova, Surgical NEC Guidelines Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 7 Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 Italy), and Michal Rygl (Professor of Pediatric surgery, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic) for proofreading the draft manuscript during the peer review phase. Last, the authors want to thank Olivia Spivack for her linguistic advice and im- provements to this manuscript. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors have no con flicts of interest to declare. Funding Sources ERNICA has received funding of the European Committee for this work. The HTA team from SESCS worked on this project as part of the ERN Guidelines Project (SANTE/2018/B3/030). These funders had no role in the design, data collection, data analysis, and reporting of this guideline. Author Contributions Jan Hulscher, Carmen Mesas Burgos, and Willemijn Irvine planned and guided the guideline development process and took the lead in writing this executive summary. Iris den Uijl provided logistic and organizational support before, during, and after meetings of the guideline development group. The HTA team from SECS performed the systematic review. Willemijn Irvine summarized and critically appraised the literature and drafted the EtD tables. Andrea Conforti, Antonio Di Cesare, Martina I c h i n o ,R o n yS f e i r ,O m i dM a d a d i - S a n j a n i ,J o a n n aS t r o h m ,M a r i a Hukkinen, Laura Moschino, Lorenzo Norsa, Alena Kokesova, Roel Bakx, Elisabeth Kooi, Sylvia Obermann, Elena Palleri, Marijn Vermeulen, Marie Spruce, Udo Rolle, Marc Miserez, Irene De Haro, Claudia Keyzer-Dekker, Francesco Fascetti, and Simon Eaton contributed to the interpretation of the results, the forming of recommendations, and writing of the full version of this guideline. All authors provided critical feedback to the manuscript. References 1 Jones IH, Hall NJ. Contemporary outcomes for infants with necrotizing enterocolitis: a sys- tematic review. J Pediatr. 2020;220:86 –92.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.11.011 2 Walsh MC, Kliegman RM. Necrotizing en- terocolitis: treatment based on staging crite- ria. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1986;33(1): 179 –201. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031- 3955(16)34975-6 3 Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, San- tesso N, Mustafa R, et al. Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. Cmaj. 2014;186(3): E123–42. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.131237 4 Schünemann H, Bro żek J, Guyatt G. Oxman A. GRADE handbook. 2013. GradePro. Available from: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/ handbook/handbook.html (accessed June 26 2024). 5 Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well in- formed healthcare choices. 1: introduction. Bmj. 2016;353:i2016. https://doi.org/10. 1136/bmj.i2016 6 Muller A, Schurink M, Bos AF, Hulzebos CV, Martijn A, Hulscher JB, et al. Clinical im- portance of a fixed bowel loop in the treat- ment of necrotizing enterocolitis. Neonatol- ogy. 2014;105(1):33 –8. https://doi.org/10. 1159/000355064 7 Blakely ML, Tyson JE, Lally KP, Hintz SR, Eggleston B, Stevenson DK, et al. Initial laparotomy versus peritoneal drainage in extremely low birthweight infants with sur- gical necrotizing enterocolitis or isolated in- testinal perforation: a multicenter random- ized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2021;274(4): e370 –80. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA. 0000000000005099 8 Moss RL, Dimmitt RA, Barnhart DC, Syl- vester KG, Brown RL, Powell DM, et al. Laparotomy versus peritoneal drainage for necrotizing enterocolitis and perforation. NEJM. 2006;354(21):2225 –34. https://doi. org/10.1056/NEJMoa054605 9 Rees CM, Eaton S, Kiely EM, Wade AM, McHugh K, Pierro A. Peritoneal drainage or laparotomy for neonatal bowel perforation? A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2008;248(1):44 –51. https://doi.org/10.1097/ SLA.0b013e318176bf81 10 Hofman FN, Bax NM, van der Zee DC, Kramer WL. Surgery for necrotising en- terocolitis: primary anastomosis or enteros- tomy? Pediatr Surg Int. 2004;20(7):481 –3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-004-1207-6 1 1 H a l lN J ,C u r r yJ ,D r a k eD P ,S p i t zL ,K i e l y EM, Pierro A. Resection and primary anastomosis is a vali d surgical option for infants with necrotizing enterocolitis who weigh less than 1,000 g. Arch Surg. 2005; 140(12):1149 –51. https://doi.org/10.1001/ archsurg.140.12.1149 12 Karila K, Anttila A, Iber T, Pakarinen M, Koivusalo A. Outcomes of surgery for necro- tizing enterocolitis and spontaneous intestinal perforation in Finland during 1986-2014. J Ped Surg. 2018;53(10):1928–32. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.07.020 13 Ta BD, Roze E, van Braeckel KN, Bos AF, Rassouli-Kirchmeier R, Hulscher JB. Long- term neurodevelopmental impairment in neonates surgically treated for necrotizing enterocolitis: enterostomy associated with a worse outcome. EJPS. 2011;21(1):58 –64. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1267976 14 Sho S, Neal MD, Sperry J, Hackam D. A novel scoring system to predict the development of necrotizing enterocolitis totalis in premature infants. J Ped Surg. 2014;49(7):1053–6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.10.023 15 Pennington EC, Javid PJ, Sullins V, Mueller C, Hunter CJ. Ethical dilemmas in the manage- ment of infants with necrotizing enterocolitis totalis. J Pede Surg. 2022;57(3):329–34. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.08.026 16 Pet GC, McAdams RM, Melzer L, Oron AP, Horslen SP, Goldin A, et al. Attitudes sur- rounding the management of neonates with severe necrotizing enterocolitis. J Pediatr. 2018;199:186–93.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpeds.2018.03.074 17 Norsa L, Goulet O, Alberti D, DeKooning B, Domellöf M, Haiden N, et al. Nutrition and intestinal rehabilitation of children with short bowel syndrome: a position paper of t h eE S P G H A Nc o m m i t t e eo nn u t r i t i o n . Part 2: long-term follow-up on home par- enteral nutrition. JPGN. 2023;77(2): 298 –314. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG. 0000000000003850 18 Bohnhorst B, Müller S, Dördelmann M, Peter CS, Petersen C, Poets CF. Early feeding after necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2003:143. 1 9 B u r d a l lO ,A l l i nB ,F o r dK ,G u p t aA ,L a - khoo K, Knight M, et al. Association be- tween timing of re-introduction of enteral feeding and short-term outcomes follow- ing laparotomy for necrotising enteroco- litis. J Pediatr Surg. 2022;57(7):1331 –5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021. 09.006 8 Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 Hulscher et al. Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025 20 Allendorf A, Dewitz R, Weber J, Bakthiar S, Schloesser R, Rolle U. Necrotizing entero- colitis as a prognostic factor for the neuro- developmental outcome of preterm infants: match control study after 2years. J Ped Surg. 2018;53(8):1573–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jpedsurg.2018.01.006 21 Hintz SR, Kendrick DE, Stoll BJ, Vohr BR, Fanaroff AA, Donovan EF, et al. Neuro- developmental and growth outcomes of ex- tremely low birth weight infants after nec- rotizing enterocolitis. Pediatr. 2005;115(3): 696–703. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004- 0569 22 Imren C, Vlug LE, de Koning BAE, Diertens T, Snel HE, Suurland J, et al. Necrotizing enterocolitis in a Dutch cohort of very preterm infants: prevalence, mortality, and long-term outcomes. EJPS. 2022;32(1): 111 –9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041- 1741544 23 Shah TA, Meinzen-Derr J, Gratton T, Steichen J, Donovan EF, Yolton K, et al. Hospital and neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely low-birth-weight infants with necrotizing enterocolitis and spontaneous intestinal perforation. J Perinatol. 2012; 32(7):552 –8. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp. 2011.176 24 Roze E, Ta BD, van der Ree MH, Tanis JC, van Braeckel KN, Hulscher JB, et al. Func- tional impairments at school age of children with necrotizing enterocolitis or spontaneous intestinal perforation. Pediatr Res. 2011; 70(6):619–25. https://doi.org/10.1203/PDR. 0b013e31823279b1 25 Fullerton BS, Hong CR, Velazco CS, Mercier CE, Morrow KA, Edwards EM, et al. Severe neurodevelopmental disability and health- care needs among survivors of medical and surgical necrotizing enterocolitis: a prospec- tive cohort study. J Ped Surg. 2018;53(1): 101–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg. 2017.10.029 26 Wadhawan R, Oh W, Hintz SR, Blakely ML, Das A, Bell EF, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely low birth weight in- fants with spontaneous intestinal perforation or surgical necrotizing enterocolitis. J Perinatol. 2014;34(1):64–70. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/jp.2013.128 Surgical NEC Guidelines Neonatology DOI: 10.1159/000542540 9 Downloaded from http://karger.com/neo/article-pdf/doi/10.1159/000542540/4302233/000542540.pdf by Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam user on 24 February 2025