Laparoscopic Versus Open Bowel Resection in Emergency Small Bowel Obstruction: Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

A systematic review of participant descriptors reported in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction

AIM

Reporting of participant descriptors in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) can help identify characteristics associated with favourable outcomes and allow comparison with other studies and real-world clinical populations. The aim was to identify the pattern of participant descriptors reported in studies assessing interventions for ASBO.

METHOD

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021281031) and reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Systematic searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were undertaken to identify studies assessing operative and non-operative interventions for adults with ASBO. Studies were dual screened for inclusion. Descriptors were categorised into conceptual domains by the research team.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2648 studies, of which 73 were included. A total of 156 unique descriptors were identified. On average, studies reported 12 descriptors. The most frequently reported descriptors were sex, age, SBO aetiology, history of abdominal surgery, BMI and ASA classification. The highest number of descriptors in a single study was 34, compared to the lowest number of descriptors which was one. Pathway factors were the least frequently described domain. Overall, 37 descriptors were reported in just one study.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consistency in participant descriptors reported in studies of SBO. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the descriptors were used infrequently. This makes it challenging to assess whether study participants are representative of the wider population. Further work is required to develop a Core Descriptor Set to standardise the reporting of patient characteristics and reduce heterogeneity between studies.

Diseño y validación de una herramienta para la predicción de desenlaces adversos en pacientes con obstrucción intestinal por bridas: La escala HALVIC

Introducción. La obstrucción intestinal por bridas representa una causa común de consulta a los servicios de urgencias, pero hay poca claridad sobre qué pacientes tienen mayor riesgo de desarrollar complicaciones. El objetivo de este estudio fue diseñar y validar una escala de predicción de riesgo de desenlaces adversos en pacientes con obstrucción intestinal por bridas. Métodos. Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo realizado a partir de la base de datos MIMIC-IV. Se incluyeron pacientes adultos admitidos al servicio de urgencias entre 2008 y 2019, con diagnóstico de obstrucción intestinal por bridas. El desenlace principal fue el compuesto de resección intestinal, ingreso a unidad de cuidados intensivos y mortalidad por cualquier causa. Se diseñó una escala de predicción de riesgo asignando un puntaje a cada variable. Resultados. Se incluyeron 513 pacientes, 63,7 % hombres. El desenlace compuesto se presentó en el 25,7 % de los casos. La edad, historia de insuficiencia cardiaca y enfermedad arterial periférica, nivel de hemoglobina, recuento de leucocitos e INR constituyeron el mejor modelo de predicción de estos desenlaces (AUC 0,75). A partir de este modelo, se creó la escala simplificada HALVIC, clasificando el riesgo del desenlace compuesto en bajo (0-2 puntos), medio (3-4 puntos) y alto (5-7 puntos). Conclusión. La escala HALVIC es una herramienta de predicción simple y fácilmente aplicable. Puede identificar de manera precisa los pacientes con obstrucción intestinal por bridas con alto riesgo de complicaciones, permitiendo el ajuste individualizado de las estrategias de manejo para mejorar los desenlaces.

Open versus minimally invasive small bowel resection for Crohn's disease: a NSQIP retrospective review and analysis

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with Crohn's Disease will require surgical resection. While many studies have described outcomes following ileocecectomy, few have evaluated surgical resection of other portions of small bowel. We sought to compare open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for small bowel resection excluding ileocecectomy of patients with Crohn's Disease using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.

METHODS

The NSQIP database was queried for patients with Crohn's disease or complications related to Crohn's disease who underwent segmental small bowel resection utilizing open or minimally invasive approaches between 2012 and 2018. Patients requiring ileocecectomy or diagnosed with ascites, disseminated cancer, pre-operative sepsis, ASA class 5, and patients requiring mechanical ventilation were excluded. The association of pre-operative variables including patient demographic information and comorbidities with surgical approach were examined using Fishers exact test. Intraoperative, and 30-day post-operative outcomes were compared between the groups using both univariate and multivariate logistical regression models. SAS was used for data analysis with p < 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

After exclusions, we found 1697 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent segmental small bowel resection, 1252 of whom underwent open surgery and 445 of whom underwent MIS. After adjusting for possible confounders with multivariable analysis, patients who underwent MIS had a lower incidence of wound events (surgical site, organ space, or deep wound infection, or dehiscence), post-operative bleeding, need for return to the operating room, and shorter total hospital length of stay despite longer operative times compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective review of NSQIP shows that minimally invasive small bowel resection is associated with equivalent or improved morbidity over open surgery in select patients with small bowel Crohn's Disease. We show that in select patients minimally invasive small bowel resection can be safe and performed for patients with isolated small bowel Crohn's disease.

The use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly: the FRAILESEL Italian Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

As the world population is aging rapidly, emergency abdominal surgery for acute abdomen in the elderly represents a global issue, both in developed and developing countries. Data regarding all the elderly patients who underwent emergency abdominal surgery from January 2017 to December 2017 at 36 Italian surgical departments were analyzed with the aim to appraise the contemporary reality regarding the use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly. 1993 patients were enrolled. 1369 (68.7%) patients were operated with an open technique; whereas, 624 (31.3%) underwent a laparoscopic operation. The postoperative morbidity rate was 32.6%, with a statically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (36.2% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). The reported mortality rate was 8.8%, with a statistically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (11.2% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001). Our results demonstrated that patients in the ASA II (58.1%), ASA III (68.7%) and ASA IV (88.5%) groups were operated with the traditional open technique in most of the cases. Only a small percentage of patients underwent laparoscopy for perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer repair (18.9%), adhesiolyses with/without small bowel resection (12.2%), and large bowel resection (10.7%). Conversion to open technique was associated with a higher mortality rate (11.1% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001) and overall morbidity (38.9% versus 22.1%, p = 0.001) compared with patients who did not undergo conversion. High creatinine (p < 0.001) and glycaemia (p = 0.006) levels, low hemoglobin levels (p < 0.001), oral anticoagulation therapy (p = 0.001), acute respiratory failure (p < 0.001), presence of malignancy (p = 0.001), SIRS (p < 0.001) and open surgical approach (p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. Regardless of technical progress, elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery are at very high risk for in-hospital complications. A detailed analysis of complications and mortality in the present study showed that almost 9% of elderly patients died after surgery for acute abdomen, and over 32% developed complications.

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.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforations (ICP) are a rare but severe complication of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the operative and post-operative outcomes of laparoscopy vs. open surgery performed for the management of ICP.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out on Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from January 1990 to June 2016. Clinical studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgical procedures for the treatment for ICP were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 retrospective studies were selected, including 161 patients with ICP who underwent surgery. Laparoscopy was used in 55% of the patients, with a conversion rate of 10%. The meta-analysis shows that the laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly fewer post-operative complications compared to open surgery (18.2% vs. 53.5% respectively; Relative risk, RR: 0.32 [95%CI: 0.19-0.54; p < 0.0001; I² = 0%]) and shorter hospital stay (mean difference -5.35 days [95%CI: -6.94 to -3.76; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%]). No differences between the two surgical approaches were observed for postoperative mortality, need of re-intervention, and operative time.

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights the outcomes of the surgical management of an endoscopic complication that is not yet considered in clinical guidelines. Based on the current available literature, the laparoscopic approach appears to provide better outcomes in terms of postoperative complications and length of hospital stay than open surgery in the case of ICP surgical repair. However, the creation of large prospective registries of patients with ICP would be a step forward in addressing the lack of evidence concerning the surgical treatment of this endoscopic complication.