Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 2781–2792 | Cite as

Early laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction: retrospective study of main advantages

  • Claudia Hannele Mazzetti
  • Francesco Serinaldi
  • Eric Lebrun
  • Jean Lemaitre
Article

Abstract

Background

The problem of managing adhesional small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is still unsolved. A conservative medical attitude is privileged even if it is associated to a high rate of recurrences, while surgery is applied to cases showing no improvement after 48–72 h. Adhesiolysis via laparotomy has been the standard surgical management, but it causes other adhesions in a vicious circle. The aim of the study is to evaluate the advantages of early laparoscopic adhesiolysis as an alternative approach.

Methods

From January 2010 to April 2017, 107 patients were admitted with a diagnosis of ASBO. Patients underwent medical treatment, early surgery, emergency surgery or delayed surgery after failure of medical treatment. A retrospective review and explorative statistical analysis were performed using graphical diagnostic plots, Mann–Whitney (MW) test, Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test, exact binomial test, and χ 2 test.

Results

Medical treatment led to resolution in the 77.3% of cases, but patients exhibit much more recurrences than those in the surgical group (χ 2 p < .001). They also show a longer fasting time (MW p = .027; KS p = .102), a doubled number of radiological exams (MW p < .001; KS p < .001), and more major complications than those in the early surgery group. Early surgery group is associated to shorter fasting time (MW p < .001; KS p < .001), much shorter hospital stay (MW p < .001; KS p = .002) and a smaller number of radiological exams (MW p = .005; KS p = .002) compared with delayed surgery group. The laparoscopic group shows significantly earlier regain of intestinal transit (MW p < .001; KS p = .002), shorter fasting time (MW p = .002; KS p = .008), reduced number of radiological exams (MW p = .003; KS p = .014), reduced hospital stay (MW p < .001; KS p = .005), and no more complications than the open surgery group.

Conclusions

Early laparoscopic surgery can be proposed as an effective alternative treatment for ASBO.

Keywords

Small bowel obstruction Laparoscopic adhesiolysis Postoperative adherence formation Management of small bowel adherences Early adhesiolysis Obstruction recurrences 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Claudia Hannele Mazzetti, Francesco Serinaldi, Eric Lebrun, and Jean Lemaitre have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Parker MC, Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O’Briena F et al (2001) Postoperative adhesions: ten-year follow-up of 12,584 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 44:822–829 [discussion 829–830]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holmdahl L, Risberg B, Beck DE et al (1997) Adhesions: pathogenesis and prevention-panel discussion and summary. Eur J Surg Suppl 557:56–62Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Zerega GS, Campeau JD (2001) Peritoneal repair and post-surgical adhesion formation. Hum Reprod Update 7:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tabibian N, Swehli E, Boyd A, Umbreen A, Tabibian JH (2017) Abdominal adhesions: a practical review of an often overlooked entity. Ann Med Surg 15:9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duron JJ, Silva NJ, du Montcel ST, Berger A, Muscari F, Hennet H, Veyrieres M, Hay JM (2006) Adhesive postoperative small bowel obstruction: incidence and risk factors of recurrence after surgical treatment: a multicenter prospective study. Ann Surg 244:750–757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faryniuk A, MacDonald A, van Boxel P (2015) Amnesia in modern surgery: revisiting Wangensteen’s landmark studies of small bowel obstruction. Can J Surg 58:83–84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edlich RF, Woods JA (1997) Wangensteen’s transformation of the treatment of intestinal obstruction from empiric craft to scientific discipline. J Emerg Med 15:235–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Leary MP, Neville AL, Keeley JA, Kim DY, de Virgilio C, Plurad DS (2016) Predictors of ischemic bowel in patients with small bowel obstruction. Am Surg 82:992–994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Obuz F, Terzi C, Sökmen S, Yılmaz E, Yıldız D, Füzün M (2003) The efficacy of helical CT in the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. Eur J Radiol 48:299–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zalcman M, Sy M, Donckier V, Closset J, Gansbeke DV (2000) Helical CT signs in the diagnosis of intestinal ischemia in small-bowel obstruction. Am J Roentgenol 75:1601–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Selor D, Feign E, Szold A, Allweis TM, Carmon M, Nissan S, Freund HR (1993) How conservatively can postoperative small bowel obstruction be treated? Am J Surg 165:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miron A, Giulea C, Nadragea M, Enciu O (2016) The laparoscopic approach of small bowel obstruction–the experience of a primary center. Chirurgia 111:126–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diaz JJ Jr, Bokhari F, Mowery NT, Acosta JA, Block EF, Bromberg WJ, Collier BR, Cullinane DC, Dwyer KM, Griffen MM, Mayberry JC (2008) Guidelines for management of small bowel obstruction. J Trauma Acute Care 64:1651–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Catena F, Di Saverio S, Coccolini F, Ansaloni L, De Simone B, Sartelli M, Van Goor H (2016) Adhesive small bowel adhesions obstruction: evolutions in diagnosis, management and prevention. World J Gastrointest Surg 8:222–231CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Di Saverio S, Coccolini F, Galati M, Smerieri N, Biffl WL, Ansaloni L, Tugnoli G, Velmahos GC, Sartelli M, Bendinelli C et al (2013) Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2013 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group. World J Emerg Surg 8:42CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leung AM, Vu H (2012) Factors predicting need for and delay in surgery in small bowel obstruction. Am Surg 78:403–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Catena F, Di Saverio S, Kelly MD, Biffl WL, Ansaloni L, Mandalà V, Velmahos GC, Sartelli M, Tugnoli G, Lupo M et al (2011) Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2010 evidence-based guidelines of the world society of emergency surgery. World J Emerg Surg 6:5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Otani K, Ishihara S, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Hata K, Kiyomatsu T, Tanaka T, Nishikawa T, Yasuda K, Sasaki K, Murono K, Watanabe T (2017) A retrospective study of laparoscopic surgery for small bowel obstruction. Ann Med Surg 16:34–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mouret P L’adesiolisi coelioscopia. Chirurgia digestiva per via coelioscopica. (1994) In: Testa P, Delaitre B (eds) Edizioni Vigot, Friburgo, pp. 53–69Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vettoretto N, Carrara A, Corradi A, De Vivo G, Lazzaro L, Ricciardelli L, Agresta F, Amodio C, Bergamini C, Borzellino G et al (2012) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: consensus conference guidelines. Colorectal Dis 14:e208–e215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levard H, Boudet MJ, Msika S, Molkhou JM, Hay JM, Laborde Y, Gillet M, Fingerhut A (2011) Laparoscopic treatment of acute small bowel obstruction: a multicentre retrospective study. ANZ J Surg 71:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suter M, Zermatten P, Halkic N, Martinet O, Bettschart V (2000) Laparoscopic management of mechanical small bowel obstruction: are there predictors of success or failure? Surg Endosc 14:478–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grafen FC, Neuhaus V, Schob O, Turina M (2010) Management of acute small bowel obstruction from intestinal adhesions: indications for laparoscopic surgery in a community teaching hospital. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395:57–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghosheh B, Salameh JR (2017) Laparoscopic approach to acute small bowel obstruction: review of 1061 cases. Surg Endosc 21:1945–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farinella E, Cirocchi R, La Mura F, Morelli U, Cattorini L, Delmonaco P, Migliaccio C, De Sol AA, Cozzaglio L, Sciannameo F (2009) Feasibility of laparoscopy for small bowel obstruction. World J Emerg Surg 4:3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pei KY, Asuzu D, Davis KA (2017) Will laparoscopic lysis of adhesions become the standard of care? Evaluating trends and outcomes in laparoscopic management of small-bowel obstruction using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database. Surg Endosc 31:2180–2186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khalil OMH, Abdalla WM, Allam ZA (2016) Early laparoscopic adhesiolysis versus conservative treatment of recurrent adhesive small intestinal obstruction: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Egyptian J Surg 35:96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelly KN, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Garimella V, Monson JR, Fleming FJ (2014) Laparotomy for small-bowel obstruction: first choice or last resort for adhesiolysis? A laparoscopic approach for small-bowel obstruction reduces 30-day complications. Surg Endosc 28:65–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nagle A, Ujiki M, Denham W, Murayama K (2004) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 187(4):464–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suh SW, Choi YS (2016) Laparoscopy for small bowel obstruction caused by single adhesive band. JSLS-J Soc Laparoend 20:e2016.00048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neff M, Schmidt B (2010) Laparoscopic treatment of a postoperative small bowel obstruction. JSLS-J Soc Laparoend 14:133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, (2016). Available at: http://www.R-project.org/, Accessed January 6, 2017
  33. 33.
    Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA’s Statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat 70(2):129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, Altman DG (2016) Statistical tests, P-values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 31(4):337–350CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Visceral SurgeryCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Ambroise PareMonsBelgium
  2. 2.School of EngineeringNewcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneUK
  3. 3.Willis Research NetworkLondonUK

Personalised recommendations