Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Komplikationen bei Dünndarmeingriffen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Komplikationsmanagement in der Chirurgie

  • 3664 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Obwohl Dünndarmresektionen vergleichsweise zu den am häufigsten durchgeführten Eingriffen zählen, ist die Komplikationsrate auch im Vergleich zu kolorektalen Resektionen vergleichsweise gering. Dies liegt im Wesentlichen an zwei Ursachen: die sehr gute Durchblutung und die fast ausnahmslos übersichtlich und spannungsfrei anzulegende Anastomose. Aus der Mobilität resultiert ein weiterer Vorteil: die Nahtverbindungen können häufig über relativ kleine bei minimalinvasiver Vorgehensweise erschwert sein kann, zumindest aber ein hohes Maß an Erfahrung erfordert. Auch die chirurgische Therapie des Ileus ist unter laparoskopischen Bedingungen anspruchsvoll und nicht unter allen Umständen in einem vernünftigen Verhältnis von Aufwand zu Nutzen realisierbar.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Anderson DN, Driver CP, Park KG, Davidson AI, Keenan RA (1994) Loop ileostomy fixation: A simple technique to minimise the risk of stomal volvulus. Int J Colorectal Dis 9(3):138–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arung W, Meurisse M, Detry O (2011) Pathophysiology and prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. World J Gastroenterol 17(41):4545–4553

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A (1980) Intestinal loop lengthening– -a technique for increasing small intestinal length. J Pediatr Surg 15(2):145–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boccola MA, Buettner PG, Rozen WM, Siu SK, Stevenson AR, Stitz R, Ho YH (2011) Risk factors and outcomes for anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: A single-institution analysis of 1576 patients. World J Surg 35(1):186–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brochhausen C, Schmitt VH, Planck CN, Rajab TK, Hollemann D, Tapprich C et al (2012) Current strategies and future perspectives for intraperitoneal adhesion prevention. J Gastrointest Surg 16(6):1256–1274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Moore EE, Biffl WL, Offner PJ (2000) Single-layer continuous versus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis: A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 231(6):832–837

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne TA, Persinger RL, Young LS, Ziegler TR, Wilmore DW (1995) A new treatment for patients with short-bowel syndrome. Growth hormone, glutamine, and a modified diet. Ann Surg 222(3):243–254 (discussion 254–5)

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campion JP, Nomikos J, Launois B (1988) Duodenal closure and esophagojejunostomy experience with mechanical stapling devices in total gastrectomy for cancer. Arch Surg 123(8):979–983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daams F, Monkhorst K, van den Broek J, Slieker JC, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2013) Local ischaemia does not influence anastomotic healing: An experimental study. Eur Surg Res 50(1):24–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • García-Botello SA, García-Armengol J, García-Granero E, Espí A, Juan C, López-Mozos F, Lledó S (2004) A prospective audit of the complications of loop ileostomy construction and takedown. Dig Surg 21(5– 6):440–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Goor H (2007) Consequences and complications of peritoneal adhesions. Colorectal Dis 9(Suppl 2):25–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goulder F (2012) Bowel anastomoses: The theory, the practice and the evidence base. World J Gastrointest Surg 4(9):208–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guo Z, Li Y, Zhu W, Gong J, Li N, Li J (2013) Comparing outcomes between side-to-side anastomosis and other anastomotic configurations after intestinal resection for patients with crohn’s disease: A meta-analysis. World J Surg 37(4):893–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gurusamy KS, Cassar DE, Davidson BR (2013) Peritoneal closure versus no peritoneal closure for patients undergoing non-obstetric abdominal operations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD010424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagmüller E, Lorenz D, Werthmann K, Trede M (1990) Uses and risks of drainage following elective colon resection. A prospective, randomized and controlled clinical study. Chirurg 61(4):266–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hearn D, Cohn I (1970) Inverted versus everted gastrointestinal anastomoses: The role of the everted mucosa in anastomotic breakdown. Am Surg 36(12):728–730

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen PB, Gilroy R, Pertkiewicz M, Allard JP, Messing B, O’Keefe SJ (2011) Randomised placebo-controlled trial of teduglutide in reducing parenteral nutrition and/or intravenous fluid requirements in patients with short bowel syndrome. Gut 60(7):902–914

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim HB, Fauza D, Garza J, Oh JT, Nurko S, Jaksic T (2003) Serial transverse enteroplasty (STEP): A novel bowel lengthening procedure. J Pediatr Surg 38(3):425–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick AW, Baxter KA, Simons RK, Germann E, Lucas CE, Ledgerwood AM (2003) Intra-abdominal complications after surgical repair of small bowel injuries: An international review. J Trauma 55(3):399–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Köckerling F, Rose J, Schneider C, Scheidbach H, Scheuerlein H, Reymond MA et al (1999) Laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis: Risk of postoperative leakage. Results of a multicenter study. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery study group (LCSSG). Surg Endosc 13(7):639–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z (2003) Ad Hoc ESPEN Working Group. Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): A new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr 22(3):321–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuppinger D, Hartl WH, Bertok M, Hoffmann JM, Cederbaum J, Küchenhoff H et al (2012) Nutritional screening for risk prediction in patients scheduled for abdominal operations. Br J Surg 99(5):728–737

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis SJ, Andersen HK, Thomas S (2009) Early enteral nutrition within 24 h of intestinal surgery versus later commencement of feeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 13(3):569–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazaki T, Ebisawa K (2008) Enteral versus parenteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in the english literature. J Gastrointest Surg 12(4):739–755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Laborde Y, Langlois-Zantain O (1998) Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: A multicenter study controlled by randomization. French associations for surgical research. Arch Surg 133(3):309–314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Messing B, Crenn P, Beau P, Boutron-Ruault MC, Rambaud JC, Matuchansky C (1999) Long-term survival and parenteral nutrition dependence in adult patients with the short bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 117(5):1043–1050

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milsom JW, Hammerhofer KA, Böhm B, Marcello P, Elson P, Fazio VW (2001) Prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic vs. Conventional surgery for refractory ileocolic crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 44(1):1–8 (discussion 8–9)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milsom JW, de Oliveira O, Trencheva KI, Pandey S, Lee SW, Sonoda T (2009) Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing curative laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52(7):1215–1222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morse BC, Simpson JP, Jones YR, Johnson BL, Knott BM, Kotrady JA (2013) Determination of independent predictive factors for anastomotic leak: Analysis of 682 intestinal anastomoses. Am J Surg 206(6):950–955 (discussion 955– 6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phang PT, Hain JM, Perez-Ramirez JJ, Madoff RD, Gemlo BT (1999) Techniques and complications of ileostomy takedown. Am J Surg 177(6):463–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, Henderson SC, Perry S (1998) Abdominal adhesiolysis: Inpatient care and expenditures in the united states in 1994. J Am Coll Surg 186(1):1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Resegotti A, Astegiano M, Farina EC, Ciccone G, Avagnina G, Giustetto A et al (2005) Side-to-side stapled anastomosis strongly reduces anastomotic leak rates in crohn’s disease surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 48(3):464–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson D, Lefebvre G, Leyland N, Wolfman W, Allaire C, Awadalla A et al (2010) Adhesion prevention in gynaecological surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 32(6):598–608

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saha AK, Tapping CR, Foley GT, Baker RP, Sagar PM, Burke DA et al (2009) Morbidity and mortality after closure of loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis 11(8):866–871

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sajid MS, Siddiqui MR, Baig MK (2012) Single layer versus double layer suture anastomosis of the gastrointestinal tract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD005477

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpelik V (2011) Kurzatlas Chirurgie: Eine Operationslehre für Einsteiger. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpelinck V, Scolapio JS, Camilleri M, Fleming CR, Oenning LV, Burton DD, Sebo TJ et al (1997) Effect of growth hormone, glutamine, and diet on adaptation in short-bowel syndrome: A randomized, controlled study. Gastroenterology 113(4):1074–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shikata S, Yamagishi H, Taji Y, Shimada T, Noguchi Y (2006) Single- versus two-layer intestinal anastomosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 6:2

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simillis C, Purkayastha S, Yamamoto T, Strong SA, Darzi AW, Tekkis PP (2007) A meta-analysis comparing conventional end-to-end anastomosis vs. Other anastomotic configurations after resection in crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 50(10):1674–1687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szkudlarek J, Jeppesen PB, Mortensen PB (2000) Effect of high dose growth hormone with glutamine and no change in diet on intestinal absorption in short bowel patients: A randomised, double blind, crossover, placebo controlled study. Gut 47(2):199–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Broek RP, Kok-Krant N, Bakkum EA, Bleichrodt RP, van Goor H (2013) Different surgical techniques to reduce post-operative adhesion formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 19(1):12–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Volk A, Kersting S, Held HC, Saeger HD (2011) Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after single-layer continuous suture for ileocolonic anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis 26(3):321–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Wilde RL (1991) Goodbye to late bowel obstruction after appendicectomy. Lancet 338(8773):1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Allgemeine, Viszeral-, Transplantations-, Gefäß- und Thoraxchirurgie, Klinikum der Universität München, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Deutschland

    Markus Rentsch PD Dr. med., Michael Kasparek PD Dr. med. & Mareile Joka Dr.med.

Authors
  1. Markus Rentsch PD Dr. med.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Kasparek PD Dr. med.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mareile Joka Dr.med.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Rentsch PD Dr. med. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der Universität München, München, Bayern, Germany

    Markus Rentsch

  2. Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der Universität München, München, Bayern, Germany

    Andrej Khandoga

  3. Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der Universität München, München, Bayern, Germany

    Martin Angele

  4. Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der Universität München, München, Germany

    Jens Werner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rentsch, M., Kasparek, M., Joka, M. (2015). Komplikationen bei Dünndarmeingriffen. In: Rentsch, M., Khandoga, A., Angele, M., Werner, J. (eds) Komplikationsmanagement in der Chirurgie. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43475-8_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43475-8_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-43474-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-43475-8

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation