When a Baby Is Born With Too Little Intestine: The Long Road Off Intravenous Feeding

What a study of twenty extremely premature babies in Qatar, and a 2026 review of the feeding evidence, tell families about short bowel syndrome

When a premature baby loses much of the intestine to a bowel emergency, the question families live with is whether the gut that remains will one day absorb enough food on its own. A 2025 report from Qatar found that four in five extremely premature babies with short bowel syndrome eventually came off intravenous feeding, most by around 20 months of corrected age. A 2026 review sets out how that is achieved — and how much of it is still guided by experience rather than evidence.

What short bowel syndrome is, and how babies come to have it

The small intestine is where almost all food is absorbed. It is long for a reason: a full-term newborn has roughly two to three metres of it, folded into the abdomen, with an inner surface many times larger than the skin. When a large portion has to be removed, what is left may not be able to take in enough water, salt, and calories to keep a baby growing. Doctors call this short bowel syndrome, and when it means a child depends on nutrition given through a vein for months, they call the broader condition intestinal failure.

In newborns, the commonest cause by far is necrotising enterocolitis — a serious inflammation of the bowel that affects premature babies, and that sometimes destroys enough intestine to require emergency surgery. Less often the cause is a twist in the bowel that cuts off its blood supply (volvulus), or a segment that never formed properly before birth (atresia). Short bowel syndrome is rare in absolute terms — around 25 cases per 100,000 births — but it is very unevenly distributed: among babies born prematurely the rate is roughly 100 times higher than among babies born at term [1]. Among the very smallest babies cared for in intensive care in one large American research network, about 0.7 in every 100 developed it [2].

The good news, and it is real, is that a baby's intestine is remarkably good at growing into the job. After surgery the remaining bowel begins to change within a day or two: it lengthens, widens, and the absorbing surface thickens. This process is called adaptation, and it is much more vigorous in a baby than in an older child or an adult [3]. The whole aim of treatment is to give that adaptation the best possible conditions and the time it needs.

How this used to go, and what changed

For decades, a baby who lost most of the intestine faced a bleak and uncertain future. Intravenous nutrition — a bag of sugars, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals delivered through a long-term line into a large vein — kept children alive who would once have died, but it came at a cost. The line itself is a route for infection into the bloodstream. Over months and years, the liver can be injured by prolonged intravenous feeding. And each time a line is lost, one of the body's limited number of usable large veins is lost with it. Long-term series from the 1980s and 1990s recorded substantial mortality, and a meaningful number of children came to need an intestinal transplant [4].

What turned this around was not a new drug. It was a new way of organising care. Hospitals began building intestinal rehabilitation programmes: a fixed team — surgeon, gut specialist, dietitian, pharmacist, specialist nurse — who follow the same child for years rather than weeks [5]. These teams changed the fat mixture used in intravenous nutrition to protect the liver, treated every central line as a precious and non-renewable resource, and offered operations designed to make the most of the bowel a child already has rather than replacing it. Where such programmes exist, long-term survival is now above 90%, and transplantation has become a last resort rather than an expected step [6]. One influential model, developed in Manchester, uses tube-like openings on the abdomen to gently stretch and grow the remaining bowel before it is reconnected [7].

What remained unclear was whether the most premature babies — those born at 24 to 28 weeks, weighing well under a kilogram — could share in this improvement. They were often assumed to do worst.

What the Qatar study found

Doctors at Sidra Medicine in Doha, Qatar — the country's national children's surgical centre — looked back at every premature baby with short bowel syndrome they had treated between January 2018 and February 2024 [8]. Twenty babies born at 32 weeks or earlier qualified. Their middle gestational age was 28 weeks and their middle birth weight 860 grams — less than a bag of sugar. Necrotising enterocolitis was the cause in 18 of the 20.

All were cared for under the unit's structured programme, which combined liver-protective intravenous nutrition, careful protection of veins, an operation to stretch and lengthen the bowel where appropriate, feeding tubes for overnight feeds, encouragement of feeding by mouth wherever possible, and long-term follow-up by the same team.

Sixteen of the twenty babies — 80% — eventually came off intravenous nutrition entirely. Half the group had done so by 16 months of age, and the group reached its final figure by about 20 months of corrected age (that is, age counted from the original due date rather than the birth date). Seven babies had a bowel-lengthening operation called serial transverse enteroplasty, which cuts and staples the widened bowel into a longer, narrower zigzag; six of those seven came off intravenous feeding. Two babies died, both from infection while still on intravenous nutrition, at around five and a half months corrected age. No child needed a liver or intestinal transplant, and no family was lost to follow-up.

Two findings are worth pausing on. The first is that being born extremely early did not, by itself, predict a poor outcome — these results are comparable to what has been reported in older children. The second is more surprising: the measurements doctors most often use when talking to families about the future — how many centimetres of bowel remain, whether a particular valve between the small and large intestine was saved — did not separate the babies who came off intravenous feeding from those who did not. The one thing that did differ was liver irritation from prolonged intravenous feeding, which was far commoner in the babies who stayed dependent [9]. That is almost certainly a consequence of longer time on the drip rather than a cause of it, but it is a useful early warning sign.

This was a small study — twenty children in one hospital, looked at after the fact rather than planned in advance — so its numbers are encouraging rather than definitive. Larger collections of children who have had the lengthening operation report success rates between roughly 40% and 70% [10].

How much of the daily care is actually proven?

Alongside this, a team of doctors and dietitians in Israel published a review asking a blunt question: how good is the evidence behind the feeding decisions made every day for these children? They searched six research databases covering fifty years and found 130 relevant paediatric studies [11].

Almost all of them were observational — that is, records of what happened rather than planned comparisons. Only five studies had examined when to start milk feeds after surgery. Only ten had examined how quickly to increase them. There has never been a proper trial comparing feeding by continuous slow drip against feeding in separate meals, and when hydrolysed formula (with proteins broken down into smaller pieces) was compared with ordinary formula in a randomised trial, growth and nutrition were no different.

Some things are clear enough to rely on. Milk in the gut is the single most powerful driver of adaptation, so feeding should start as soon as the abdomen allows, even in tiny quantities. Mother's own milk is recommended first by every major professional society, and a European survey found 23 of 24 specialist centres using it as the main feed. Feeding into the stomach, rather than past it into the intestine, is the usual choice. Increases in feed volume should be judged on how the baby tolerates them — stool or stoma output, vomiting, hydration, weight gain — rather than on a fixed schedule.

The review also makes clear that coming off intravenous nutrition is not the end of the story. Children remain prone to shortages of iron, zinc, and vitamins A, D and E long afterwards; in one group of thirty children, most had at least one vitamin or mineral deficiency even after achieving full feeding by mouth. Regular blood tests, and dietitian follow-up, stay important for years.

What this means for families

If your baby is starting on this road, three things from these papers are worth holding on to. First, the odds are better than they used to be: four in five extremely premature babies in this programme came off intravenous nutrition, and none needed a transplant. Second, it takes time — the honest timeline is one to two years, not weeks, and progress is rarely a straight line. Third, where care happens matters. The single most consistent finding across this whole field is that children looked after by a dedicated, unchanging team do better than children whose care is fragmented [12].

There is also genuine work going on to speed things up. A medicine called teduglutide, a manufactured copy of a natural gut hormone, encourages the intestine to grow and absorb more. It is licensed for children from one year of age who depend on intravenous nutrition. In earlier studies about 16% of children treated with it reached full feeding by mouth; newer studies and real-world experience report figures up to around 30%, with the greatest benefit in children who were already close to weaning [13]. Cost and availability still limit its use, and it works alongside good nutritional care rather than replacing it.

Researchers are also working on better ways to predict who will succeed and how long it will take, on proper trials of the feeding questions that remain unanswered, and on understanding why, across a large international group of 443 children, survival has improved and transplantation has fallen without more children actually reaching full feeding by mouth [14]. Perhaps the most encouraging thread running through all of this is how often children surprise their doctors: French specialists have described children born with less than 10 centimetres of small intestine who nonetheless, eventually, learned to live without the drip [15].

If you would like to read more about the bowel emergency that most often leads to this situation, In[Neo]Sight has a cluster on surgery for necrotising enterocolitis and one on the fat mixture used to protect the liver during intravenous feeding.

References

  1. Wales PW, de Silva N, Kim J, Lecce L, To T, Moore A. Neonatal short bowel syndrome: population-based estimates of incidence and mortality rates. J Pediatr Surg. 2004;39(5):690–695. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.01.036 ↩
  2. Cole CR, Hansen NI, Higgins RD, Ziegler TR, Stoll BJ; Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Very low birth weight preterm infants with surgical short bowel syndrome: incidence, morbidity and mortality, and growth outcomes at 18 to 22 months. Pediatrics. 2008;122(3):e573–e582. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-3449 ↩
  3. Goulet O, Olieman J, Ksiazyk J, Spolidoro J, Tibboel D, Köhler H, Yagci RV, Falconer J, Grimble G, Beattie RM. Neonatal short bowel syndrome as a model of intestinal failure: physiological background for enteral feeding. Clin Nutr. 2013;32(2):162–171. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.09.007 ↩
  4. Colomb V, Dabbas-Tyan M, Taupin P, Talbotec C, Révillon Y, Jan D, De Potter S, Gorski-Colin AM, Lamor M, Herreman K, Corriol O, Landais P, Ricour C, Goulet O. Long-term outcome of children receiving home parenteral nutrition: a 20-year single-center experience in 302 patients. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2007;44(3):347–353. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e31802c6971 ↩
  5. Merritt RJ, Cohran V, Raphael BP, Sentongo T, Volpert D, Warner BW, Goday PS; Nutrition Committee of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. Intestinal rehabilitation programs in the management of pediatric intestinal failure and short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017;65(5):588–596. doi:10.1097/MPG.0000000000001722 ↩
  6. Fullerton BS, Hong CR, Jaksic T. Long-term outcomes of pediatric intestinal failure. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2017;26(5):328–335. doi:10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2017.09.006 ↩
  7. Khalil BA, Ba'ath ME, Aziz A, Forsythe L, Gozzini S, Murphy F, Carlson G, Bianchi A, Morabito A. Intestinal rehabilitation and bowel reconstructive surgery: improved outcomes in children with short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012;54(4):505–509. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e318230c27e ↩
  8. Mammoo S, Alshahwani N, Mancha MA, Baghazal H, Ali M, et al. Intestinal autonomy in extreme premature infants with short bowel syndrome: national experience. Pediatr Surg Int. 2025;41(1):143. doi:10.1007/s00383-025-06036-4 ↩
  9. Guglielmi FW, Regano N, Mazzuoli S, Fregnan S, Leogrande G, Guglielmi A, Merli M, Pironi L, Penco JM, Francavilla A. Cholestasis induced by total parenteral nutrition. Clin Liver Dis. 2008;12(1):97–110. doi:10.1016/j.cld.2007.11.004 ↩
  10. Jones BA, Hull MA, Potanos KM, Zurakowski D, Fitzgibbons SC, Ching YA, Duggan C, Jaksic T, Kim HB; International STEP Data Registry. Report of 111 consecutive patients enrolled in the International Serial Transverse Enteroplasty (STEP) Data Registry: a retrospective observational study. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(3):438–446. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.018 ↩
  11. Spector Cohen I, Moran-Lev H, Levi R, Golden H, Sukhotnik I. Nutritional strategies for intestinal rehabilitation in children with short bowel syndrome: a narrative review. Nutrients. 2026;18(2):180. doi:10.3390/nu18020180 ↩
  12. Puoti MG, Köglmeier J. Nutritional management of intestinal failure due to short bowel syndrome in children. Nutrients. 2022;15(1):62. doi:10.3390/nu15010062 ↩
  13. Zhang Q, Hou M, Jin M, Yang X, Li Y, Bi X, Liu F, Liu Y. Optimizing teduglutide treatment regimens in children with short bowel syndrome. Front Pediatr. 2026;14:1898958. doi:10.3389/fped.2026.1898958 ↩
  14. Gattini D, Roberts AJ, Wales PW, Beath SV, Evans HM, Hind J, Mercer D, Wong T, Yap J, Belza C, et al. Trends in pediatric intestinal failure: a multicenter, multinational study. J Pediatr. 2021;237:16–23.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.06.025 ↩
  15. Norsa L, Artru S, Lambe C, Talbotec C, Pigneur B, Ruemmele F, Colomb V, Capito C, Chardot C, Lacaille F, Goulet O. Long-term outcomes of intestinal rehabilitation in children with neonatal very short bowel syndrome: parenteral nutrition or intestinal transplantation. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(2):926–933. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.02.004 ↩