Laparoscopic Versus Open Adhesiolysis for Small Bowel Obstruction: A Single-Center Retrospective Case-Control Study

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.

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.

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis versus open adhesiolysis in acute adhesive small bowel obstruction

Introduction

Exploratory laparotomy is still the standard therapy for patients who need surgical intervention for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO). However, the use of laparoscopy in the management of adhesive SBO is still controversial. We aimed to detect the short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic adhesiolysis for SBO.

Patients and Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients with adhesive SBO who underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery from June 2019 to July 2022 at Ain Shams University Hospitals. Intraoperative and early post-operative outcomes were compared in the two groups.

Results

A total of 89 patients with adhesive SBO were included in our study. Fifty-one cases underwent open adhesiolysis and 38 cases underwent laparoscopic adhesiolysis. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is associated with a remarkable decrease in the operative time (71 min vs. 107 min, P = 0.001) and blood loss (50 ml vs. 120 ml, P = 0.001) in comparison to open adhesiolysis. In addition to that, those who underwent adhesiolysis by laparoscopy had a short hospital stay (2.4 days vs. 3.8 days, P = 0.001), early recovery (time to pass flatus 1.3 days vs. 2.8 days) and less post-operative complications (surgical site infection [SSI] 2.6% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.001). Moreover, open adhesiolysis is associated with a higher rate of early post-operative mortality. In addition to that, the incidence of iatrogenic injury was higher in the open group.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is a safe and feasible approach for the management of SBO and has better short-term outcomes, especially if done by skilled surgeons in advanced laparoscopic techniques.

Laparoscopic versus open approach for adhesive small bowel obstruction, a systematic review and meta-analysis of short term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is one of the most frequent causes of emergency hospital admissions and surgical treatment. Current surgical treatment of ASBO consists of open adhesiolysis. With laparoscopic procedures rising, the question arises if laparoscopy for ASBO is safe and results in better patient outcomes. Although adhesiolysis was among the first surgical procedures to be approached laparoscopically, uncertainty remains about its potential advantages over open surgery. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the benefits and harms of laparoscopic surgery for ASBO.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted for articles published up to May 2019. Two reviewers screened all articles and did the quality assessment. Consecutively a meta-analysis was performed. To reduce selection bias, only matched studies were used in our primary analyses. All other studies were used in a sensitivity analyses. All the outcomes were measured within the 30th postoperative day. Core outcome parameters were postoperative mortality, iatrogenic bowel perforations, length of postoperative stay [days], severe postoperative complications, and early readmissions. Secondary outcomes were operative time [min], missed iatrogenic bowel perforations, time to flatus [days], and early unplanned reoperations.

RESULTS

In our meta-analysis, 14 studies (participants = 37.007) were included: 1 randomized controlled trial, 2 matched studies, and 11 unmatched studies. Results of our primary analyses show no significant differences in core outcome parameters (postoperative mortality, iatrogenic bowel perforations, length of postoperative stay, severe postoperative complications, early readmissions). In sensitivity analyses, laparoscopic surgery favored open adhesiolysis in postoperative mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.29-0.45), length of postoperative hospital stay (mean difference [MD], -4.19; 95% CI, -4.43 to -3.95), operative time (MD, -18.19; 95% CI, -20.98 to -15.40), time to flatus (MD, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.68), severe postoperative complications (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.56) and early unplanned reoperations (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Results of this systematic review indicate that laparoscopic surgery for ASBO is safe and feasible. Laparoscopic surgery is not associated with better or worse postoperative outcomes compared with open adhesiolysis. Future research should focus on the correct selection of those patients who are suitable for laparoscopic approach and may benefit from this approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review/Meta-analysis, Level III.

Technical Approach to Laparoscopic Examination of the Small Bowel in Gallstone Ileus

Background

Gallstone ileus is an infrequent cause of small bowel obstructions (SBO), accounting for only 0.1-5% of SBOs and 25% of nonstrangulating causes of SBO in the elderly population. There is scant literature available regarding the use of laparoscopy to treat gallstone ileus. Currently, much of the literature available is limited to case reports only.

Methods

A complete laparoscopic approach was utilized to manage a 65-year-old woman with morbid obesity who presented with gallstone ileus. With regard to our technical approach, we describe the technical approach that facilitates safe laparoscopic examination of the entire small bowel and can be applied to other acute care surgery cases involving small bowel pathology.

Results

The patient's postoperative course was complicated by new-onset atrial fibrillation which was treated medically with good response. She was safely discharged on postoperative day 2.

Conclusion

Laparoscopy is a feasible option for the management of gallstone ileus and can lead to decreased morbidity compared to laparotomy. The technique described allows for laparoscopic examination of the entire small bowel.

Does Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis Reduce the Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction Related Readmissions and Reoperations Compared to Open Adhesiolysis?

Purpose

The present study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in decreasing recurrent episodes of small bowel obstruction (SBO) compared to that of the conventional open procedure.

Methods

Among 373 patients who visited our emergency department from January 2000 to July 2018 due to small bowel obstruction, 67 patients who underwent adhesiolysis were included in this study. Eighteen and 49 patients comprised the open adhesiolysis (OA) and laparoscopic adhesiolysis (LA) groups, respectively. Clinical demographics, computed tomography (CT) findings, laboratory results, and perioperative outcomes were compared. Further, the long-term follow-ups of SBO related re-admissions and re-operations were also compared.

Results

Preoperative baseline data, pain characteristics, laboratory findings, and ileus-related CT findings showed no significant difference between the two groups. LA was related to less blood loss and complications, along with early bowel movement recovery. Similarly, fewer SBO-related re-admissions [OA vs. LA=8 (44.4%) vs. 3 (6.1%), p=0.001] and re-operations [OA vs. LA=3 (16.7%) vs. 1 (2.0%), p=0.025] were observed in LA compared to OA.

Conclusion

LA is a safer and more feasible procedure for SBO treatment compared to OA. This procedure showed a reduction in SBO-related re-admission and re-operation rates.

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.

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.

A Systematic Review of the Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Small Bowel Obstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This study aimed to systematically review small bowel obstruction (SBO), focusing on recent changes in diagnosis/therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

SBO incidence is about 350,000/annum in the USA. Etiologies include adhesions (65%), hernias (10%), neoplasms (5%), Crohn's disease (5%), and other (15%). Bowel dilatation occurs proximal to obstruction primarily from swallowed air and secondarily from intraluminal fluid accumulation. Dilatation increases mural tension, decreases mucosal perfusion, causes bacterial proliferation, and decreases mural tensile strength that increases bowel perforation risks. Classical clinical tetrad is abdominal pain, nausea and emesis, abdominal distention, and constipation-to-obstipation. Physical exam may reveal restlessness, acute illness, and signs of dehydration and sepsis, including tachycardia, pyrexia, dry mucous membranes, hypotension/orthostasis, abdominal distention, and hypoactive bowel sounds. Severe direct tenderness, involuntary guarding, abdominal rigidity, and rebound tenderness suggest advanced SBO, as do marked leukocytosis, neutrophilia, bandemia, and lactic acidosis. Differential diagnosis includes postoperative ileus, narcotic bowel, colonic pseudo-obstruction, mesenteric ischemia, and large bowel obstruction. Medical resuscitation includes intravenous hydration, correcting electrolyte abnormalities, intravenous antibiotics, nil per os, and nasoenteral suction. Abdominal CT with oral and intravenous gastrografin contrast is highly sensitive and specific in detecting/characterizing SBO. SBO usually resolves with medical therapy but requires surgery, preferentially by laparoscopy, for unremitting total obstruction, bowel perforation, severe ischemia, or clinical deterioration with medical therapy. Overall mortality is 10% but increases to 30% with bowel necrosis/perforation. Key point in SBO is early diagnosis, emphasizing abdominal CT; aggressive medical therapy including rehydration, antibiotics, and nil per os; and surgery for failed medical therapy.