Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Incidence and Risk Factors of Post-Laparotomy Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this review was to assess the incidence and risk factors for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) following laparotomy.

Methods

The PubMed database was systematically reviewed to identify studies in the English literature delineating the incidence of adhesive SBO and reporting risk factors for the development of this morbidity.

Results

A total of 446,331 abdominal operations were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. The overall incidence of SBO was 4.6%. The risk of SBO was highly influenced by the type of procedure, with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis being associated with the highest incidence of SBO (1,018 out of 5,268 cases or 19.3%), followed by open colectomy (11,491 out of 121,085 cases or 9.5%). Gynecological procedures were associated with an overall incidence of 11.1% (4,297 out of 38,751 cases) and ranged from 23.9% in open adnexal surgery, to 0.1% after cesarean section. The technique of the procedure (open vs. laparoscopic) also played a major role in the development of adhesive SBO. The incidence was 7.1% in open cholecystectomies vs. 0.2% in laparoscopic; 15.6% in open total abdominal hysterectomies vs. 0.0% in laparoscopic; and 23.9% in open adnexal operations vs. 0.0% in laparoscopic. There was no difference in SBO following laparoscopic or open appendectomies (1.4% vs. 1.3%). Separate closure of the peritoneum, spillage and retention of gallstones during cholecystectomy, and the use of starched gloves all increase the risk for adhesion formation. There is not enough evidence regarding the role of age, gender, and presence of cancer in adhesion formation.

Conclusion

Adhesion-related morbidity comprises a significant burden on healthcare resources and prevention is of major importance, especially in high-risk patients. Preventive techniques and special barriers should be considered in high-risk cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Deference CJ, Lucas CA, Buie VC, Golosinskiy A. 2006 National Hospital Discharge Survey. National Health Statistics Reports; 2008. Report No. 5

  2. Weibel MA, Majno G. Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery. A postmortem study. Am J Surg [Internet]. 1973;126(3):345–353.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions—how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl [Internet] 1990;72(1):60–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet [Internet]. 1999;353(9163):1476–1480.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Parker MC, Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Briena F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. Postoperative adhesions: Ten-year follow-up of 12,584 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum [Internet]. 2001;44(6):822–829; discussion 829–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Ellis H, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8849 open gynaecological operations: An assessment from the surgical and clinical adhesions research study. BJOG [Internet]. 2000;107(7):855–862.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, Sunderland G, Thompson JN, Clark DN, Knight AD, Crowe AM, Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research (SCAR) Group. Colorectal surgery: The risk and burden of adhesion-related complications. Colorectal Dis [Internet]. 2004;6(6):506–511.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Clark D, Boyd JH, Finlayson AR, Knight AD, Crowe AM, Surgical and Clinical Research (SCAR) Group. Adhesion-related readmissions following gynaecological laparoscopy or laparotomy in scotland: An epidemiological study of 24 046 patients. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2004;19(8):1877–1885.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, Sunderland G, Clark DN, Knight AD, Crowe AM, Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research (SCAR) Group. The SCAR-3 study: 5-year adhesion-related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures. Colorectal Dis [Internet]. 2005;7(6):551–558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. London: Central Statistical Office. Social Trends. 1995. Report No. 25

  11. Dowson HM, Bong JJ, Lovell DP, Worthington TR, Karanjia ND, Rockall TA. Reduced adhesion formation following laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery. Br J Surg [Internet]. 2008;95(7):909–914.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuhry E, Schwenk WF, Gaupset R, Romild U, Bonjer HJ. Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2008 16;(2)(2):CD003432.

  13. Taylor GW, Jayne DG, Brown SR, Thorpe HC, Brown JM, Dewberry SC, Quirke P, Guillou PJ. Adhesive intestinal obstruction and incisional herniation following laparoscopic-assisted and open colorectal cancer surgery: A supplementary analysis of the MRC CLASICC trial. Brit J Surg/Wiley, New York, 2007, p 42. AGSBI Abstracts

    Google Scholar 

  14. Riber C, Soe K, Jorgensen T, Tonnesen H. Intestinal obstruction after appendectomy. Scand J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 1997;32(11):1125–1128.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Andersson RE. Small bowel obstruction after appendectomy. Br J Surg [Internet]. 2001;88(10):1387–1391.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Duron JJ, Silva NJ, du Montcel ST, Berger A, Muscari F, Hennet H, Veyrieres M, Hay JM. Adhesive postoperative small bowel obstruction: Incidence and risk factors of recurrence after surgical treatment: A multicenter prospective study. Ann Surg [Internet]. 2006;244(5):750–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blachar A, Federle MP. Bowel obstruction following liver transplantation: Clinical and ct findings in 48 cases with emphasis on internal hernia. Radiology [Internet]. 2001;218(2):384–388.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sugitani A, Gritsch HA, Shapiro R, Bonham CA, Egidi MF, Corry RJ. Surgical complications in 123 consecutive pancreas transplant recipients: Comparison of bladder and enteric drainage. Transplant Proc [Internet]. 1998;30(2):293–294.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wasserberg N, Nunoo-Mensah JW, Ruiz P, Tzakis AG. The effect of immunosuppression on peritoneal adhesions formation after small bowel transplantation in rats. J Surg Res [Internet]. 2007;141(2):294–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Park CM, Lee WY, Cho YB, Yun HR, Lee WS, Yun SH, Chun HK. Sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane (seprafilm) reduced early postoperative intestinal obstruction after lower abdominal surgery for colorectal cancer: The preliminary report. Int J Colorectal Dis [Internet]. 2009;24(3):305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shin JY, Hong KH. Risk factors for early postoperative small-bowel obstruction after colectomy in colorectal cancer. World J Surg [Internet]. 2008;32(10):2287–2292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Leung TT, Dixon E, Gill M, Mador BD, Moulton KM, Kaplan GG, MacLean AR. Bowel obstruction following appendectomy: What is the true incidence? Ann Surg [Internet]. 2009;250(1):51–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stewart RM, Page CP, Brender J, Schwesinger W, Eisenhut D. The incidence and risk of early postoperative small bowel obstruction. A cohort study. Am J Surg [Internet]. 1987;154(6):643–647.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tortella BJ, Lavery RF, Chandrakantan A, Medina D. Incidence and risk factors for early small bowel obstruction after celiotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma. Am Surg [Internet]. 1995;61(11):956–958.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Weigelt JA, Kingman RG. Complications of negative laparotomy for trauma. Am J Surg [Internet]. 1988;156(6):544–547.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ellis H, Heddle R. Does the peritoneum need to be closed at laparotomy? Br J Surg [Internet]. 1977;64(10):733–736.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilbert JM, Ellis H, Foweraker S. Peritoneal closure after lateral paramedian incision. Br J Surg [Internet]. 1987;74(2):113–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hugh TB, Nankivell C, Meagher AP, Li B. Is closure of the peritoneal layer necessary in the repair of midline surgical abdominal wounds? World J Surg [Internet]. 1990;14(2):231–233; discussion 233–234.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Komoto Y, Shimoya K, Shimizu T, Kimura T, Hayashi S, Temma-Asano K, Kanagawa T, Fukuda H, Murata Y. Prospective study of non-closure or closure of the peritoneum at cesarean delivery in 124 women: Impact of prior peritoneal closure at primary cesarean on the interval time between first cesarean section and the next pregnancy and significant adhesion at second cesarean. J Obstet Gynaecol Res [Internet]. 2006;32(4):396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cheong YC, Premkumar G, Metwally M, Peacock JL, Li TC. To close or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol [Internet]. 2009;147(1):3–8

    Google Scholar 

  31. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Farine D, Rahimi S, Cavallotti C, Vergara D, Martignago R, Stark M. Effects of visceral peritoneal closure on scar formation at cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet [Internet]. 2009;105(2):131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sheikh KM, Duggal K, Relfson M, Gignac S, Rowden G. An experimental histopathologic study of surgical glove powders. Arch Surg [Internet]. 1984;119(2):215–219.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cade D, Ellis H. The peritoneal reaction to starch and its modification by prednisone. Eur Surg Res [Internet]. 1976;8(5):471–479.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cooke SA, Hamilton DG. The significance of starch powder contamination in the aetiology of peritoneal adhesions. Br J Surg [Internet]. 1977;64(6):410–412.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Luijendijk RW, Wauters CC, Voormolen MH, Hop WC, Jeekel J. Intra-abdominal adhesions and foreign-body granulomas following earlier laparotomy. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd [Internet]. 1994;138(14):717–721.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Woodfield JC, Rodgers M, Windsor JA. Peritoneal gallstones following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Incidence, complications, and management. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2004;18(8):1200–1207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zehetner J, Shamiyeh A, Wayand W. Lost gallstones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: All possible complications. Am J Surg [Internet]. 2007;193(1):73–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sax HC, Adams JT. The fate of the spilled gallstone. Arch Surg [Internet]. 1993;128(4):469.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Huynh T, Mercer D. Early postoperative small bowel obstruction caused by spilled gallstones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery [Internet]. 1996;119(3):352–353.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schafer M, Suter C, Klaiber C, Wehrli H, Frei E, Krahenbuhl L. Spilled gallstones after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A relevant problem? A retrospective analysis of 10,174 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 1998;12(4):305–309.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Memon MA, Deeik RK, Maffi TR, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr. The outcome of unretrieved gallstones in the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective analysis. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 1999;13(9):848–857.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Manukyan MN, Demirkalem P, Gulluoglu BM, Tuney D, Yegen C, Yalin R, Aktan AO. Retained abdominal gallstones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg [Internet]. 2005;189(4):450–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hui TT, Giurgiu DI, Margulies DR, Takagi S, Iida A, Phillips EH. Iatrogenic gallbladder perforation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Etiology and sequelae. Am Surg [Internet]. 1999;65(10):944–948.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Assaff Y, Matter I, Sabo E, Mogilner JG, Nash E, Abrahamson J, Eldar S. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and the consequences of gallbladder perforation, bile spillage, and "loss" of stones. Eur J Surg [Internet]. 1998;164(6):425–431.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lujan Mompean JA, Robles Campos R, Parrilla Paricio P, Soria Aledo V, Garcia Ayllon J. Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: A prospective assessment. Br J Surg [Internet]. 1994;81(1):133–135.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ortega AE, Hunter JG, Peters JH, Swanstrom LL, Schirmer B. A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. laparoscopic appendectomy study group. Am J Surg [Internet]. 1995;169(2):208–212; discussion 212–213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Walker SJ, West CR, Colmer MR. Acute appendicitis: Does removal of a normal appendix matter, what is the value of diagnostic accuracy and is surgical delay important? Ann R Coll Surg Engl [Internet]. 1995;77(5):358–363.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Cox MR, McCall JL, Toouli J, Padbury RT, Wilson TG, Wattchow DA, Langcake M. Prospective randomized comparison of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy in men. World J Surg [Internet]. 1996;20(3):263–266.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hansen JB, Smithers BM, Schache D, Wall DR, Miller BJ, Menzies BL. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: Prospective randomized trial. World J Surg [Internet]. 1996;20(1):17–20; discussion 21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Mutter D, Vix M, Bui A, Evrard S, Tassetti V, Breton JF, Marescaux J. Laparoscopy not recommended for routine appendectomy in men: Results of a prospective randomized study. Surgery [Internet]. 1996;120(1):71–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Williams MD, Collins JN, Wright TF, Fenoglio ME. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. South Med J [Internet]. 1996;89(7):668–674.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Hulkko A. Cost-effective appendectomy. open or laparoscopic? A prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 1998;12(10):1204–1208.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Kazemier G, de Zeeuw GR, Lange JF, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. A randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 1997;11(4):336–340.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Laine S, Rantala A, Gullichsen R, Ovaska J. Laparoscopic appendectomy-is it worthwhile? A prospective, randomized study in young women. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 1997;11(2):95–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Macarulla E, Vallet J, Abad JM, Hussein H, Fernandez E, Nieto B. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A prospective randomized trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc [Internet]. 1997;7(4):335–339.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hellberg A, Rudberg C, Kullman E, Enochsson L, Fenyo G, Graffner H, Hallerback B, Johansson B, Anderberg B, Wenner J, Ringqvist I, Sorensen S. Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg [Internet]. 1999;86(1):48–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Ozmen MM, Zulfikaroglu B, Tanik A, Kale IT. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: Prospective randomized trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech [Internet]. 1999;9(3):187–189.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Huang MT, Wei PL, Wu CC, Lai IR, Chen RJ, Lee WJ. Needlescopic, laparoscopic, and open appendectomy: A comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech [Internet]. 2001;11(5):306–312.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Pedersen AG, Petersen OB, Wara P, Ronning H, Qvist N, Laurberg S. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg [Internet]. 2001;88(2):200–205.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Milewczyk M, Michalik M, Ciesielski M. A prospective, randomized, unicenter study comparing laparoscopic and open treatments of acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2003;17(7):1023–1028.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Tingstedt B, Johansson J, Nehez L, Andersson R. Late abdominal complaints after appendectomy—readmissions during long-term follow-up. Dig Surg [Internet]. 2004;21(1):23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, Gevorgyan A, Essani R. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg [Internet]. 2005;242(3):439–448; discussion 448–450.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Moberg AC, Berndsen F, Palmquist I, Petersson U, Resch T, Montgomery A. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis. Br J Surg [Internet]. 2005;92(3):298–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Khairy GA, Afzal MF, Murshid KR, Guraya S, Ghallab A. Post appendectomy small bowel obstruction. Saudi Med J [Internet]. 2005;26(7):1058–1060.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cueto J, D'Allemagne B, Vazquez-Frias JA, Gomez S, Delgado F, Trullenque L, Fajardo R, Valencia S, Poggi L, Balli J, Diaz J, Gonzalez R, Mansur JH, Franklin ME. Morbidity of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis: An international study. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2006;20(5):717–720.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Duron JJ, Hay JM, Msika S, Gaschard D, Domergue J, Gainant A, Fingerhut A. Prevalence and mechanisms of small intestinal obstruction following laparoscopic abdominal surgery: A retrospective multicenter study. French Association for Surgical Research. Arch Surg [Internet]. 2000;135(2):208–212.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Kiviluoto T, Siren J, Luukkonen P, Kivilaakso E. Randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for acute and gangrenous cholecystitis. Lancet [Internet]. 1998;351(9099):321–325.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Lujan JA, Parrilla P, Robles R, Marin P, Torralba JA, Garcia-Ayllon J. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs open cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis: A prospective study. Arch Surg [Internet]. 1998;133(2):173–175.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Parikh JA, Ko CY, Maggard MA, Zingmond DS. What is the rate of small bowel obstruction after colectomy? Am Surg [Internet]. 2008;74(10):1001–1005.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Mohri Y, Uchida K, Araki T, Inoue Y, Tonouchi H, Miki C, Kusunoki M. Hyaluronic acid-carboxycellulose membrane (seprafilm) reduces early postoperative small bowel obstruction in gastrointestinal surgery. Am Surg [Internet]. 2005;71(10):861–863.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Beck DE, Opelka FG, Bailey HR, Rauh SM, Pashos CL. Incidence of small-bowel obstruction and adhesiolysis after open colorectal and general surgery. Dis Colon Rectum [Internet]. 1999;42(2):241–248.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW. Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg [Internet]. 2003;197(2):177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nieuwenhuijzen M, Reijnen MM, Kuijpers JH, van Goor H. Small bowel obstruction after total or subtotal colectomy: A 10-year retrospective review. Br J Surg [Internet]. 1998;85(9):1242–1245.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Sonoda T, Pandey S, Trencheva K, Lee S, Milsom J. Longterm complications of hand-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy. J Am Coll Surg [Internet]. 2009;208(1):62–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Poppen B, Svenberg T, Bark T, Sjogren B, Rubio C, Drakenberg B, Slezak P. Colectomy–proctomucosectomy with S-pouch: Operative procedures, complications, and functional outcome in 69 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum [Internet]. 1992;35(1):40–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. McMullen K, Hicks TC, Ray JE, Gathright JB, Timmcke AE. Complications associated with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis. World J Surg [Internet]. 1991;15(6):763–766; discussion 766–767.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Skarsgard ED, Atkinson KG, Bell GA, Pezim ME, Seal AM, Sharp FR. Function and quality of life results after ileal pouch surgery for chronic ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis. Am J Surg [Internet]. 1989;157(5):467–471.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Becker JM, Stucchi AF. Proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg [Internet]. 2004;8(4):376–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Oresland T, Fasth S, Nordgren S, Hulten L. The clinical and functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy. A prospective study in 100 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis [Internet]. 1989;4(1):50–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Young CJ, Solomon MJ, Eyers AA, West RH, Martin HC, Glenn DC, Morgan BP, Roberts R. Evolution of the pelvic pouch procedure at one institution: The first 100 cases. Aust N Z J Surg [Internet]. 1999;69(6):438–442.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Vasilevsky CA, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM. The S ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg [Internet]. 1987;11(6):742–750.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Nicholls RJ, Holt SD, Lubowski DZ. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir. Comparison of two-stage vs. three-stage procedures and analysis of factors that might affect outcome. Dis Colon Rectum [Internet]. 1989;32(4):323–326.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Fonkalsrud EW, Stelzner M, McDonald N. Experience with the endorectal ileal pullthrough with lateral reservoir for ulcerative colitis and polyposis. Arch Surg [Internet]. 1988;123(9):1053–1058.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Marcello PW, Roberts PL, Schoetz DJ Jr, Coller JA, Murray JJ, Veidenheimer MC. Obstruction after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis: A preventable complication? Dis Colon Rectum [Internet]. 1993;36(12):1105–1111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Francois Y, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Beart RW Jr, Wolff BG, Pemberton JH, Ilstrup DM. Small intestinal obstruction complicating ileal pouch–anal anastomosis. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1989;209(1):46–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Galandiuk S, Pemberton JH, Tsao J, Ilstrup DM, Wolff BG. Delayed ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Complications and functional results. Dis Colon Rectum [Internet]. 1991;34(9):755-758.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Fazio VW, Ziv Y, Church JM, Oakley JR, Lavery IC, Milsom JW, Schroeder TK. Ileal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1995;222(2):120–127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. MacLean AR, Cohen Z, MacRae HM, O'Connor BI, Mukraj D, Kennedy ED, Parkes R, McLeod RS. Risk of small bowel obstruction after the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg [Internet]. 2002;235(2):200–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Nyam DC, Brillant PT, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG. Ileal pouch-anal canal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis: Early and late results. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1997;226(4):514–519; discussion 519–521.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Renz BM, Feliciano DV. Unnecessary laparotomies for trauma: A prospective study of morbidity. J Trauma [Internet]. 1995;38(3):350–356.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Morrison JE, Wisner DH, Bodai BI. Complications after negative laparotomy for trauma: Long-term follow-up in a health maintenance organization. J Trauma [Internet]. 1996;41(3):509–513.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Al-Sunaidi M, Tulandi T. Adhesion-related bowel obstruction after hysterectomy for benign conditions. Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2006;108(5):1162–1166.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, Los Angeles County Medical Center–University of Southern California, 1200 North State Street, Inpatient Tower (C)–Room C5L100, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Galinos Barmparas, Bernardino C. Branco, Beat Schnüriger, Lydia Lam, Kenji Inaba & Demetrios Demetriades

Authors
  1. Galinos Barmparas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernardino C. Branco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Beat Schnüriger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lydia Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kenji Inaba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Demetrios Demetriades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demetrios Demetriades.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barmparas, G., Branco, B.C., Schnüriger, B. et al. The Incidence and Risk Factors of Post-Laparotomy Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction. J Gastrointest Surg 14, 1619–1628 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-010-1189-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-010-1189-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation