Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for acute small bowel obstruction: systematic review and pooled analysis

Keys to successful laparoscopic adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstruction: A scoping review

Background

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common acute abdominal complication. Although non-surgical treatment is the primary treatment approach, more and more studies show that surgical treatment can reduce the incidence rate. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis (LA) has many advantages of minimally invasive surgery.But not all patients with ASBO are suitable for LA.

Objective

The aim of this scoping review was to summarize the keys to successful LA by analyzing the extensive literature.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed for articles on laparoscopic treatment of ASBO published between January 2000 and February 2024. This scoping review followed the framework suggested by Arksey and O'Malley for a scoping review.

Results

By analyzing the included studies we found that LA does have many advantages and can be performed safely. However, the prerequisite is to select patients with simple adhesions whenever possible and to focus on reasonable intraoperative measures. To improve the success rate of LA, we summarized the following characteristics of patients: no contraindications related to pneumoperitoneum, few previous abdominal operations (≤2), no pregnancy, bowel dilatation < 4 cm in diameter, simple adhesions, no diffuse peritonitis, no history of abdominal radiotherapy, <24 h of ASBO, limited previous abdominal surgery (appendix, cholecystectomy), no bowel strangulation ischemia, and bowel necrosis or bowel resection required for other reasons. In addition, we also summarized reasonable intraoperative measures.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis has many advantages.Specific patients can benefit from LA. This scoping review Summarized the conditions for patient screening and reasonable intraoperative measures with the aim of providing a reference for surgeons, thereby ensuring that more patients benefit from LA.

Adhesive small bowel obstruction: predictive factors of laparoscopic failure

The adoption of laparoscopy for the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) patients is debated. The laparoscopic approach has been associated with a considerable conversion-to-open rate. Nonetheless, reliable predictors of conversion are still unclear. The present study aimed to identify factors associated with conversion to open in ASBO patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for ASBO and were admitted to our unit between December 2014 and October 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were categorized into two groups: patients who underwent complete laparoscopy approach (Group 1) and patients converted to open technique (Group 2). Demographic, clinical, and radiological features, intraoperative findings, and postoperative outcomes were compared. A total of 168 patients were enrolled: 100 patients (59.5%) were included in Group 1, and 68 patients (40.5%) were included in Group 2. The rate of ischemia (p = 0.023), surgical complications (p = 0.001), operative time (p < 0.0001), days of nasogastric tube maintenance (p < 0.0001), time to canalization (p < 0.0001), and length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1. Following univariate analysis, the presence of feces signs (p = 0.044) and high mean radiodensity of intraperitoneal free fluid (p = 0.031) were significantly associated with Group 2 compared with Group 1. Following multivariate analysis, the feces sign was a significant predictive factor of conversion (OR 1.965 [IC 95%]; p = 0.046). Laparoscopic treatment is a safe and effective approach in patients affected by ASBO. The feces sign may be a predictive factor of conversion and could guide the surgeon in selecting the appropriate management of patients affected by ASBO.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Individualization of the best approach for adhesive small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic postoperatives outcomes in adhesiolysis are promising but conversion and morbidity remains high. The objective of our study was to determine preoperative factors to individualize and select the most appropriate approach for each patient.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years old undergoing emergent surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction and internal hernias were evaluated. Bivariate and multivariate analysis were performed to investigate factors related to conversion to open surgery and to the type of adhesions.

RESULTS

Of 333 patients, 224 were operated by laparotomy and 109 by laparoscopy (conversion rate: 40%). Previous abdominal wall mesh, type of adhesions, bowel lesion, need for intestinal resection and laparoscopic skills were statistically related to conversion. In the multivariate analysis, complex adhesions (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.5-12.2; P = 0.006), the need for intestinal resection (OR 14.16, 95% CI 2.55-78.68; P = 0.002), and non-advanced laparoscopy surgeons (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.56-11.94; P = 0.005) were independent factors for conversion to open surgery. ASA III-IV, previous surgeries, previous abdominal mesh and previous adhesiolysis were related to complex adhesions. Previous laparoscopic surgery and internal hernia or closed loop in computed tomography were associated with simple adhesions as a cause of the obstruction. In the multivariate, previous adhesiolysis (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.23-18.3; P = 0.023) and the findings on computed tomography were significantly related with the type of adhesion.

CONCLUSION

Some preoperative factors allow to individualize the surgical approach in the adhesive small bowel obstruction improving surgical outcomes.

Is laparoscopic surgery safe and feasible in acute adhesive ileus?

Although the classical surgical treatment of adhesive ileus is performed using the open method, laparoscopic surgery has recently been performed in some centers. This study aimed to discuss the feasibility and role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of adhesive small bowel obstruction. In this retrospective study, the data of 830 patients who were operated for ileus in Başkent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Hospital, Department of General Surgery between January 2011 and September 2022 were analyzed. Missing data and intraabdominal cancer-related ileus were accepted as exclusion criteria and 648 patients were excluded from the study. The development of adhesion-related ileus and completeness of the data were accepted as inclusion criteria. Data were compared between the 2 groups [open group (OG; 152 cases) and laparoscopic group (LG; 30 cases]). When the patient characteristics were evaluated, it was found that the history of previous abdominal surgery (P < .001) and the number of previous abdominal surgery (P < .001) were statistically significantly higher in OG. Operation time was significantly longer in the LG (P = .022). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative bowel injury (P = .216), bowel resection (P = .284), and stoma creation (P = .331). OG had a significantly higher rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 serious complications (P < .001) and mortality rate (P = .045). The first gas out occurred significantly earlier in the LG (P = .014). Oral intake was initiated earlier in the LG (P = .004). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LG (P < .001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of postoperative ileus, readmission, and reoperation. Laparoscopic surgery can be safely performed for the treatment of selected patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction. In addition, it is advantageous in terms of postoperative recovery.

Assessing outcomes in laparoscopic vs open surgical management of adhesive small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Small bowel obstruction is typically managed nonoperatively; however, refractory small bowel obstructions or closed loop obstructions necessitate operative intervention. Traditionally, laparotomy has long been the standard operative intervention for lysis of adhesions of small bowel obstructions. But as surgeons become more comfortable with minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopy has become a widely accepted intervention for small bowel obstructions. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopy to open surgery in the operative management of small bowel obstruction.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of operative small bowel obstruction cases at a single academic medical center from June 2016 to December 2019. Data were obtained from billing data and electronic medical record for patients with primary diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. Postoperative outcomes between the laparoscopic and open intervention groups were compared. The primary outcome was time to return of bowel function. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, VTE, and reoperation rate.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of a total of 279 patients with 170 (61%) and 109 (39%) patients in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. Patients undergoing laparoscopic intervention had overall shorter median return of bowel function (4 vs 6 days, p = 0.001) and median length of stay (8 vs 13 days, p = 0.001). When stratifying for bowel resection, patients in the laparoscopic group had shorter return of bowel function (5.5 vs 7 days, p = 0.06) and shorter overall length of stay (10 vs 16 days, p < 0.002). Patients in the laparoscopic group who did not undergo bowel resection had an overall shorter median return of bowel function (3 vs 5 days, p < 0.0009) and length of stay (7 vs 10 days, p < 0.006). When comparing surgeons who performed greater than 40% cases laparoscopically to those with fewer than 40%, there was no difference in patient characteristics. There was no significant difference in return of bowel function, length of stay, post-operative mortality, or re-admission laparoscopic preferred or open preferred surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic intervention for the operative management of small bowel obstruction may provide superior clinical outcomes, shorter return of bowel function and length of stay compared to open operation, but patient selection for laparoscopic intervention is based on surgeon preference rather than patient characteristics.

Feasibility of laparoscopy and factors associated with conversion to open in minimally invasive emergency major abdominal surgery: population database analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence regarding the overall feasibility and success rates of the laparoscopic approach in major emergency surgery, despite its potential to improve outcomes. This study aims to investigate the association between patient, procedural, and surgical factors and likelihood of successful laparoscopic completion in emergency major surgery and derive a predictive model to aid clinical decision-making.

METHOD

All patients recorded in the NELA emergency laparotomy database 1 December 2013-31 November 2018 who underwent laparoscopically attempted surgery were included. A retrospective cohort multivariable regression analysis was conducted for the outcome of conversion to open surgery. A predictive model was developed and internally validated.

RESULTS

Of 118,355 patients, 17,040 (7.7%) underwent attempted laparoscopic surgery, of which 7.915 (46.4%) were converted to open surgery. Procedure type was the strongest predictor of conversion (compared to washout as reference, small bowel resection OR 25.93 (95% CI 20.42-32.94), right colectomy OR 6.92 (5.5-8.71)). Diagnostic [free pus, blood, or blood OR 3.67 (3.29-4.1)] and surgeon [subspecialist surgeon OR 0.56 (0.52-0.61)] factors were also significant, whereas age, gender, and pre-operative mortality risk were not. A derived predictive model had high internal validity, C-index 0.758 (95% CI 0.748-0.768), and is available for free-use online.

CONCLUSION

Surgical, patient, and diagnostic variables can be used to predict likelihood of laparoscopic success with a high degree of accuracy. This information can be used to inform peri-operative decision-making and patient selection.

Role of Laparoscopy in the Surgical Management of Acute Small Bowel Obstruction: Fact or Fiction?

Background: Laparotomy (open surgery) is considered the standard approach for acute small bowel obstruction (ASBO). However, with the advent of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic approach is gaining popularity. There is no consensus on the appropriate setting for laparoscopic therapy for small bowel obstruction (SBO).

Aim and objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for ASBO.

Patients and methods: We retrospectively evaluated the prospectively collected data of all the 38 patients who had undergone laparoscopy for ASBO, performed by a single surgeon at our institution, due to adhesions (30 patients), internal hernias (five patients), midgut malrotation (one patient), ileo-ileal intussusception (one patient), and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome (one patient) from 2012 to 2020. Data were extracted from the hospital electronic medical records (EMR) for the following parameters of each individual patient: age, sex, clinical presentation, preoperative investigation findings, final diagnosis, surgical details, operating time, time to postoperative oral feeds, length of hospital stay, complications, recurrences, and time taken to resume normal activity. A preoperative abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) was performed in all the cases. Patients with peritonitis and septic shock were excluded from the study. 

Results: The mean age of the 38 patients was 58 years (ranged between 33 and 83 years) with a standard deviation (SD) of 16.5. The mean age of the female patients in the study was 60.5 years with an SD of 16.6, while the mean age of the male patients was 54.9 years (SD = 16.2). The age difference between male and female patients in the study was not statistically significant (p = 0.36). The mean operating time was 74.4 minutes (range: 60-90 minutes, with an SD of 7.2). The mean time to oral liquid/soft diet was 2.5 days. The mean postoperative stay was 5.7 days. Three patients (8%) underwent conversion to open surgery, out of which two patients had multiple complex bowel-to-bowel and bowel-to-parietes adhesions, and in one patient, massive distension of small bowel caused technical difficulties.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic management of ASBO is feasible, effective, and safe. Optimum surgical techniques, the surgeon's experience with the procedure, and stringent patient selection criteria enable a high probability of success.

Facing the unexpected: unusual causes of mechanical small bowel obstruction in adults

Mechanical small bowel obstruction in adults is a common emergency condition that typically requires hospitalisation and usually acute surgical intervention. The majority of the cases are due to adhesive obstruction or common abdominal wall hernias or relevant related past history. However, the surgeons might face unexpected challenges in this concept due to rare causes of this condition. This paper explores in depth the challenges encountered by the emergency general surgeons in the concept of management of rare causes of mechanical small bowel obstruction in adults through a systematic review and critical analysis of the available evidence, and summarises the essential intra-operative steps that are needed to be taken accordingly. In conclusion, the emergency surgeons should be familiar with the uncommon/rare causes of mechanical small bowel obstruction in adults to avoid serious complications. Successful outcomes are based on the combination of high index of clinical suspicion, familiarity with the standard anatomy and its variations, the use of the appropriate radiological investigations and surgical intervention in a timely manner.

Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction and the six w's: Who, How, Why, When, What, and Where to diagnose and operate?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Approximately 75% of patients admitted with small bowel obstruction have intra-abdominal adhesions as their cause (adhesive small bowel obstruction). Up to 70% of adhesive small bowel obstruction cases, in the absence of strangulation and bowel ischemia, can be successfully treated with conservative management. However, emerging evidence shows that surgery performed early during the first episode of adhesive small bowel obstruction is highly effective. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the current evidence on adhesive small bowel obstruction management strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the literature published over the last 20 years was performed to assess Who, hoW, Why, When, What, and Where diagnose and operate on patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction.

RESULTS

Adequate patient selection through physical examination and computed tomography is the key factor of the entire management strategy, as failure to detect patients with strangulated adhesive small bowel obstruction and bowel ischemia is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The indication for surgical exploration is usually defined as a failure to pass contrast into the ascending colon within 8-24 h. However, operative management with early adhesiolysis, defined as operative intervention on either the calendar day of admission or the calendar day after admission, has recently shown to be associated with an overall long-term survival benefit compared to conservative management. Regarding the surgical technique, laparoscopy should be used only in selected patients with an anticipated single obstructing band, and there should be a low threshold for conversion to an open procedure in cases of high risk of bowel injuries.

CONCLUSION

Although most adhesive small bowel obstruction patients without suspicion of bowel strangulation or gangrene are currently managed nonoperatively, the long-term outcomes following this approach need to be analyzed in a more exhaustive way, as surgery performed early during the first episode of adhesive small bowel obstruction has shown to be highly effective, with a lower rate of recurrence.

Role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery in the management of small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) arises on various backgrounds, and the surgical procedure is often modified intraoperatively as needed. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is less invasive than conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPS) and reported to be equally safe and efficient. We have been applying SILS to SBO requiring surgical treatment, and we conducted a retrospective study to clarify the role of SILS in the management of SBO.

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients were identified for inclusion in the study through a review of hospital records of patients having undergone surgery for SBO between May 2013 and June 2018. Patients with tumor- or hernia-related SBO were excluded. We also identified, for comparison, a group of patients who had undergone open surgery for SBO during the preceeding 5-year period. The primary study endpoint was the SILS completion rate, and analyses were performed to identify risk factors for conversion to open surgery and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

The SILS completion rate was 70.6% (24/34 patients), with conversion open surgery required for the remaining 10 (29.4%) patients. Conversion was necessitated by limited working space in 5 (50%) patients, discovery of massive necrosis in 3 (30%), and non-detection of the responsible lesion in 2 (20%). Univariable analysis showed an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score (p = 0.020) and severe intra-abdominal adhesions (p = 0.007) to be risk factors for conversion. Conversion to open surgery (vs complete SILS) was significantly associated with increased operation time (p = 0.018), blood loss (p = 0.021), postoperative stay (p = 0.010), and postoperative complications (p = 0.004). Open surgery was significantly associated with increased postoperative stay (p = 0.026) and postoperative complications (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

SILS appears to be a reasonable surgical treatment option for selected patients with SBO.

Clinical factors associated with success in applying laparoscopy in the management of small bowel obstruction at a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have become standard approaches for many common surgical problems. However, the routine use of laparoscopy in the management of small bowel obstruction (SBO) has yet to be fully standardized. The objective of this study was to determine clinical factors associated with success of laparoscopy in managing SBO.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted by identifying all patients admitted to a large tertiary center with a diagnosis of SBO from 2014 to 2016. The operative cases were stratified by surgical approach: laparoscopy, laparoscopy converted to open, or laparotomy. Univariable analysis compared patient demographics and comorbidities between the laparoscopic and laparoscopic converted to open group. The primary outcome was successful laparoscopic procedure in the management of SBO, defined as resolution of SBO, and no conversion from laparoscopic to open procedures. Student's t test or Pearson's χ² test were used to assess associations between factors and primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 227 adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of SBO received operative intervention. There were 40 successful laparoscopic cases (52.6%) and 36 failed laparoscopic cases (47.4%). With the exception of an association between success of laparoscopy and BMI, the results demonstrated no other demographic or clinical differences among the successful versus failed laparoscopic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is effective in treating SBOs due to various etiologies including single band or multiple adhesions, hernias, or masses. Other than BMI, there was no single predictor of success or failure with laparoscopy. Therefore, we conclude that perhaps all patients requiring operative treatment for SBO deserve consideration for a diagnostic laparoscopy.

Bowel obstruction: a narrative review for all physicians

Small and large bowel obstructions are responsible for approximately 15% of hospital admissions for acute abdominal pain in the USA and ~ 20% of cases needing acute surgical care. Starting from the analysis of a common clinical problem, we want to guide primary care physicians in the initial management of a patient presenting with acute abdominal pain associated with intestinal obstruction.

The role of the laparoscopic approach in the surgical management of acute adhesive small bowel obstruction

Background

Postoperative adhesions represent 75% of all acute small bowel obstructions. Although open surgery is considered the standard approach for adhesiolysis, laparoscopic approach is gaining popularity.

Methods

A retrospective study with data from a prospectively maintained data base of all patients undergoing surgical treatment for adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) from January 2007 to May 2016 was conducted. Postoperative outcomes comparing open vs laparoscopic approaches were analysed. An intention to treat analysis was performed. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of ASBO.

Results

262 patients undergoing surgery for ASBO were included. 184 (70%) and 78 (30%) patients were operated by open and laparoscopic approach respectively. The conversion rate was 38.5%. Patients in the laparoscopic group were younger (p < 0.001), had fewer previous abdominal operations (p = 0.001), lower ASA grade (p < 0.001), and less complex adhesions were found (p = 0.001). Operative time was longer in the open group (p = 0.004). Laparoscopic adhesiolysis was associated with a lower overall complication rate (43% vs 67.9%, p < 0.001), lower mortality (p = 0.026), earlier oral intake (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001). Specific analysis of patients with single band and/or internal hernia who did not need bowel resection, also demonstrated fewer complications, earlier oral intake and shorter length of stay. In the multivariate analysis, the open approach was an independent risk factor for overall complications compared to the laparoscopic approach (Odds Ratio = 2.89; 95% CI 1.1–7.6; p = 0.033).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic management of ASBO is feasible, effective and safe. The laparoscopic approach improves postoperative outcomes and functional recovery, and should be considered in patients in whom simple band adhesions are suspected. Patient selection is the strongest key factor for having success.

Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstruction (LASSO): an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstruction is being done more frequently, it is not widely accepted due to the lack of supporting evidence of its superiority over an open approach and concerns regarding its benefits. We aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic adhesiolysis was a superior treatment for adhesive small bowel obstruction compared with an open approach in terms of length of postoperative hospital stay and morbidity.

METHODS

In this international, multicentre, parallel, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) aged 18-95 years who had adhesive small bowel obstruction that had not resolved with conservative management to have either open or laparoscopic adhesiolysis. The study was done in five academic university hospitals and three community (central) hospitals in two countries (Finland [n=3 academic university hospitals; n=3 community hospitals] and Italy [n=2 academic university hospitals]). We included only patients with high likelihood of a single adhesive band in the trial; additionally, patients who had an anaesthesiological contraindication, were pregnant, living in institutionalised care, or who had a hospital stay of more than 1 week before the surgical consultation were excluded from the trial. The randomisation sequence was generated using block randomisation, with randomly varied block sizes and stratified according to centre. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay assessed at time of discharge in the modified intention-to-treat population.

FINDINGS

Between July 18, 2013, and April 9, 2018, 566 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 104 patients were randomly assigned to the open surgery group (n=51) or to the laparoscopy group (n=53). Of these patients, 100 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses (49 in the open surgery group; 51 in the laparoscopy group). The postoperative length of hospital stay for open surgery group was on average 1·3 days longer than that in the laparoscopy group (geometric mean 5·5 days [range 2-19] vs 4·2 days [range 1 -20]; ratio of geometric means 1·31 [95% CI 1·06-1·61]; p=0·013). 21 (43%) patients in the open surgery group and 16 (31%) patients in the laparoscopy group had postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo any grade) within 30 days (odds ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·27-1·38]; p=0·23). One patient died in each group within 30 days.

INTERPRETATION

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis provides quicker recovery in selected patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction than open adhesiolysis.

FUNDING

Vatsatautien Tutkimussäätiö Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, Martti I Turunen Foundation, and governmental (Finland) competitive research funds (EVO/VTR/TYH).

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for adhesional small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies

BACKGROUND

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) due to adhesions is a common acute surgical presentation. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is being performed more frequently. However, the clear benefits of laparoscopic adhesiolysis (LA) compared with traditional open adhesiolysis (OA) remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for SBO due to adhesions.

METHODS

A systemic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case-controlled studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for SBO. Data were extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.

RESULTS

There were no RCT. Data from 18 CCS on 38,927 patients (LA = 5,729 and OA = 33,389) were analysed. A meta-analysis showed that LA for SBO has decreased overall mortality (LA = 1.6% vs. OA = 4.9%, p < 0.001) and morbidity (LA = 11.2% vs. OA = 30.9%, p < 0.001). Similarly, the incidences of specific complications are significantly lower in the LA group. There are significantly lower reoperation rate (LA = 4.5% vs. OA = 6.5%, p = 0.017), shorter average operating time (LA = 89 min vs. OA = 104 min, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (LOS) (LA = 6.7 days vs. OA = 11.6 days, p < 0.001) in the LA group. In the CCS, there is likely to be a selection bias favouring less complex adhesions in the LA group that may contribute to the better outcomes in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a probable selection bias, these results suggest that LA for SBO in selected patients has a reduced mortality, morbidity, reoperation rate, average operating time and LOS compared with OA. LA should be considered in appropriately selected patients with acute SBO due to adhesions.

Small Bowel Obstruction

Identifying patients with small bowel obstruction who need operative intervention and those who will fail nonoperative management is a challenge. Without indications for urgent intervention, a computed tomography scan with/without intravenous contrast should be obtained to identify location, grade, and etiology of the obstruction. Most small bowel obstructions resolve with nonoperative management. Open and laparoscopic operative management are acceptable approaches. Malnutrition needs to be identified early and managed, especially if the patient is to undergo operative management. Confounding conditions include age greater than 65, post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, inflammatory bowel disease, malignancy, virgin abdomen, pregnancy, hernia, and early postoperative state.

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: not for all patients, not for all surgeons, not in all centres

ASBO is a common cause of emergency surgery and the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of these patients is still under debate and conflicting results have been published, in particular regarding the high risk of iatrogenic bowel injury. In fact, although over the last few years there has been an increasing enthusiasm in the surgical community about the advantages and potential better outcomes of laparoscopic management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO), recently published studies have introduced a significant word of caution. From 2011 in our centre, we have started to systematically approach ASBO in carefully selected patients with a step-by-step standardized laparoscopic procedure, developed and performed by a single operator experienced in emergency laparoscopy, collecting data in a prospective database. Inclusion criteria were: stable patients (without diffuse peritonitis and/or septic shock with suspicion of bowel perforation), CT scan findings consistent with a clear transition point and therefore suspected to have a single obstructing adhesive band. Patients with diffuse SB distension in the absence of a well-defined transition point and suspected to have diffuse matted adhesions (based on their surgical history and radiological findings) should be initially managed conservatively, including gastrografin challenge. Up to date, 83 patients were enrolled in the study. The rate of iatrogenic full-thickness bowel injury was 4/83 (4.8%); two of these cases were managed with simple repair and the other two required bowel resection and anastomosis. Conversion to open was performed in 3/4 of these cases, whereas in one a repair of the full-thickness injury was completed laparoscopically. All the iatrogenic injuries were detected intraoperatively and none of the reoperations that occurred in this series were due to missed bowel injuries. At 30 days follow-up, none reported incisional hernias or SSI or death. With the described accurate selection of patients, the use of such standardized step-by-step technique and in the presence of dedicated operating surgeons with advanced emergency surgery laparoscopic expertise, such procedure can be safe and feasible with multiple advantages in terms of morbidity and LOS. A careful preoperative selection of those patients who might be best candidates for laparoscopic adhesiolysis is needed. The level of laparoscopic expertise can also be highly variable, and not having advanced surgical expertise in the specific subspecialty of emergency laparoscopy, ultimately resulting in performing standardized procedures with proper careful and safe step-by-step technique, is highly recommended.

Laparoscopy or laparotomy for adhesive bowel obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is one of the most important cause of postoperative morbidity in children who underwent abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic management for ASBO in pediatric patients has been reported. However, its safety and efficacy has not been evaluated in details. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy for the treatment of ASBO in children.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of intervention and the preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and a protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017067914). The primary outcome was the number of intraoperative and postoperative complications. The secondary outcome was length of hospital stay. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Quality of evidence was summarized using the grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We identified three observational studies and no randomized controlled trials. The meta-analysis was done only for the primary outcome. Complications were significantly fewer after laparoscopy compared to laparotomy (Odds ratio = 0.51; 95% CI 0.40-0.66; p < 0.01; I ²: 0%). The overall risk of bias was considered serious.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results, based on observational studies, indicate that laparoscopy for ASBO was associated with less postoperative complications compared to conventional laparotomy. However, the quality of evidence is very low. A well-controlled study is needed to assess the efficacy of laparoscopy for pediatric patients with ASBO.

Laparoscopic Repair of Incisional Hernia Following Liver Transplantation-Early Experience of a Single Institution in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Ventral incisional hernia (VIH) is not uncommon following liver transplantation. Open repair was traditionally adopted for its management. Laparoscopic repair of VIH has been performed successfully in nontransplant patients with evidence of reduced recurrence rates and hospital stay. However, the application of VIH in post-transplantation patients has not been well established. Herein, we provide our initial experience with laparoscopic repair of post-transplantation VIH.

METHODS

From March 2015 to March 2016, 18 cases of post-transplantation VIH were subjected to laparoscopic repair (laparoscopy group). A historical control group of 17 patients who underwent conventional open repair (open group) from January 2013 to January 2015 were identified for comparison. The demographics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among basic demographics between the 2 groups. No conversion was recorded in the laparoscopy group. Recurrence of VIH up to the end of the study period was not noted. In the laparoscopy group, the minor complications were lower (16.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035), the length of hospital stay was shorter (3 d vs 7 d, P = .007), but the median operative time was longer (137.5 min vs 106 min; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair of post-transplantation VIH is a safe and feasible procedure with shorter length of hospital stay.

Laparoscopic assisted foreign body extraction from the small bowel: A case report

•

Only one percent of foreign body ingestion needs surgery.

•

Exploratory laparotomy has been the mainstay of treatment for patients requiring surgery however surgeons are more and more tempted to use laparoscopy in emergency setting.

•

The increased use of minimally invasive surgery resulted in less morbidty and faster recovery after the surgical treatment of many diseases.

•

Large scale randomized controlled trials are needed before this can be used as a standard of care.

Background and aim

Foreign body ingestion is a commonly seen accident in emergencies, only 1% of them will finally need surgery. Historically, exploratory laparotomy has been the mainstay of treatment for patients requiring surgery. However surgeons are more and more tempted to use laparoscopy in emergency setting.

Through this case report we wanted to show in some selected cases the feasibility of laparoscopic assisted foreign body extraction from the small bowel leaving the patient with smaller scar, less morbidity and faster recovery.

Case presentation

A 30 year old male Inmate, ingested 40 days prior to his visit a bottom part of plastic bottle.

Physical examination found an afebrile patient with a whole abdominal tenderness but no signs of peritonitis.

The Abdominal Computed Tomography found a small bowel obstruction caused by a foreign body. No Radiological sign of perforation or peritonitis was found.

First therapeutic strategy was to wait and see, for 24 h with no sign of improvement and the patient was taken to surgery. We opted for a laparoscopic approach y. The patient had bowel and gas movement the day after surgery. In the third day, the patient had developed a parietal abscess Treated medically. In the 10th day, after surgery the patient was discharged.

Fourteenth month after the surgery, the patients is doing well with no late complication.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic assisted foreign body extraction from the small bowel is a good therapeutic option however Large scale randomized controlled trials are needed before this can be used as a standard of care.

A retrospective study of laparoscopic surgery for small bowel obstruction

Background

Open laparotomy is widely accepted as the standard surgical treatment for small bowel obstruction (SBO). However, laparoscopic surgery has recently become a treatment option. There is no consensus on the appropriate settings for the laparoscopic treatment of SBO. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for SBO.

Patients and methods

From January 2012 to May 2016, 48 consecutive patients underwent surgical treatment for SBO in our department. We retrospectively reviewed these cases and compared the features and the outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery.

Results

Thirty-four and 14 patients underwent open surgery and laparoscopic surgery, respectively. Four of the laparoscopic cases (28.6%) were converted to open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery tended to be associated with a shorter operative time than open surgery (p = 0.066). The first postoperative oral intake was significantly earlier in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.044). The duration of hospitalization after surgery and the rates of postoperative complications did not differ to a statistically significant extent. Laparoscopic treatment was accomplished in 7 out of 8 cases (87.5%) with SBO due to band occlusion.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for SBO is less invasive than open surgery and is equally feasible in selected patients. SBO due to band occlusion may be a preferable indication for laparoscopic surgery. In order to confirm the safety of laparoscopic treatment, and to clarify the appropriate settings for laparoscopic surgery for SBO, it will be necessary to perform further studies in a larger population and with a long follow-up period.

•

Surgical treatment for small bowel obstruction in 48 patients were retrospectively reviewed.

•

Laparoscopic surgery was performed in 14 patients, and 4 cases were converted to open surgery.

•

Laparoscopic surgery is less invasive than open surgery and is equally feasible in selected patients.

•

Band occlusion may be a preferable indication to laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients who underwent previous abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be impeded by intraperitoneal adhesions caused by previous abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of previous abdominal surgery on short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 3188 patients with primary colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery between January 2004 and December 2013. Patients with a history of abdominal surgery (n = 593, 18.6 %) were compared to those without such history (n = 2595, 81.4 %).

RESULTS

Patients who had undergone previous abdominal surgery exhibited acceptable intraoperative outcomes, including conversion to open surgery, operative time, estimated blood loss, and the number of harvested lymph nodes. Overall, postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.8 vs. 10.6 %, p = 0.885). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with history of major abdominal surgery (n = 165) had higher rates of conversion to open surgery (4.2 vs. 1.7 %, p = 0.033), prolonged postoperative ileus (5.5 vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.008), and wound complications (4.2 vs. 1.2 %, p = 0.006), when compared to those without prior abdominal surgery. Previous major abdominal surgery was an independent risk factor for conversion to open surgery [adjusted odds ratio = 2.740; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.197-6.269]. Disease-free survival [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.847; 95 % CI 0.532-1.346] and overall survival (adjusted HR = 0.846; 95 % CI 0.432-1.657) were not observed to differ between the previous major abdominal surgery group and those without previous abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with a history of abdominal surgery exhibited acceptable short- and long-term outcomes. Patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery had relatively higher rate of conversion to open surgery as well as higher incidences of prolonged postoperative ileus and wound complications compared to patients without such history.

A systematic review comparing laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesional small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether surgical outcomes differ between laparoscopic vs open approach for adhesiolysis in patients presenting with adhesional small bowel obstruction (ASBO).

DATA SOURCE

A systematic review of literature on published studies reporting the surgical outcomes after laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis for ASBO was undertaken using the principles of meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen comparative studies on 38,057 patients, evaluating the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis for ASBO were analyzed. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis resulted in the reduced risk of morbidity (P < .00001), mortality (P < .0001), and surgical infections (P = .003). In addition, the risk of respiratory complications, cardiac complications, bowel resection, and venous thromboembolism was lower with shorter hospitalization in laparoscopic adhesiolysis group. However, statistical equivalence was seen in variables of duration of operation and iatrogenic enterotomies.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for ASBO seems to have clinically proven advantage over open approach.

Laparoscopic completion total gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer following pancreaticoduodenectomy for bile duct cancer: a case report

Laparoscopic completion total gastrectomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has not been reported. A 73-year-old male who underwent PD 25 years ago for distal common bile duct cancer visited a surgical department for remnant gastric cancer. A previous reconstruction was performed with pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ), gastrojejunostomy and Braun anastomosis, i.e., jejunojejunostomy (JJ), between the afferent and efferent jejunal limb to prevent bile reflux into the remnant stomach. Adhesiolysis was initially performed to secure the surgical view. Lymph node dissections around the splenic artery, splenic hilum, celiac axis, left gastric artery, and common hepatic artery were performed. The PJ site was well visualized and safely preserved. Esophagojejunostomy was performed with an OrVil system. Specimen retrieval, Roux-limb preparation and JJ were performed through an extended umbilicus trocar site. A final pathologic examination revealed a 5.5-cm serosa-exposed tumor (T4a) without lymph node metastasis. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 7 without any complications.