Advertisement

Abdominal Imaging

, 34:329 | Cite as

Partial small bowel obstruction: clinical issues and recent technical advances

  • Michael L. Kendrick
Article

Abstract

Mechanical small bowel obstruction (SBO) remains a common clinical problem despite ever-increasing medical and surgical advances. The predominant etiology continues to be postoperative adhesions, accounting for approximately two-thirds of all obstructive events. As opposed to high-grade or complete small bowel obstruction where the clinical and radiographic findings are typically more diagnostic and the treatment plan more defined, partial SBO represents a subgroup, where the evaluation is more arduous, the diagnosis more elusive, and the management less defined. Operative and nonoperative approaches to treatment are successful and are based on the etiology and clinical status of the patient. A paradox remains, however, treating a predominantly surgically induced condition with repeated operations. Several advances in the treatment and prevention of SBO have become practice in past decade. This article reviews the clinical issues and technical advances of this challenging condition.

Keywords

Partial small bowel obstruction Abdominal adhesions Laparoscopy Adhesiolysis Surgical treatment 

References

  1. 1.
    Mucha P Jr (1987) Small intestinal obstruction. Surg Clin North Am 67:597–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams SB, Greenspon J, Young HA, et al. (2005) Small bowel obstruction: conservative vs. surgical management. Dis Col Rectum 48:1140–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fevang BT, Fevang J, Lie SA, et al. (2004) Long-term prognosis after operation for adhesive small bowel obstruction. Ann Surg 240:193–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fazio VW, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, et al. (2006) Reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction by Seprafilm® adhesion barrier after intestinal resection. Dis Col Rectum 49:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shrake PD, Rex DK, Lappas JC, et al. (1991) Radiographic evaluation of suspected small bowel obstruction. Am J Gastroenterol 86:175–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holmdahl L, Risberg B (1997) Adhesions: prevention and complications in general surgery. Eur J Surg 163:169–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Menzies D, Ellis H (1990) Intestinal obstruction form adhesions—how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72:60–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeekel H (1997) Cost implication of adhesions as highlighted in a European study. Eur J Surg 579(Suppl):43–45Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kossi J, Salminen P, Rantala A, et al. (2003) Population-based study of the surgical workload and economic impact of bowel obstruction caused by postoperative adhesions. Br J Surg 90:1441–1444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beck DE, Opelka FG, Bailey HR, et al. (1999) Incidence of small bowel obstruction and adhesiolysis after open colorectal and general surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 42:241–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landercasper J, Cogbill TH, Merry WH, et al. (1993) Long-term outcome after hospitalization for small-bowel obstruction. Arch Surg 128:765–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barkan H, Webster S, Ozeran S (1995) Factors predicting the recurrence of adhesive small-bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 170:361–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holmdahl L (1999) Making and covering of surgical footprints. Lancet 353:1456–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cho M, Carrodeguas L, Pinto D, et al. (2006) Diagnosis and management of partial small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. J Am Coll Surg 202:262–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dresel A, Kuhn JA, Westmoreland MV, et al. (2002) Establishing a laparoscopic gastric bypass program. Am J Surg 184:617–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kendrick ML, Dakin GF (2006) Surgical approaches to obesity. Mayo Clin Proc 81(10 suppl):S18–S24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balthazar EJ, George W (1994) Holmes Lecture. CT of the small-bowel obstruction. AJR 162:255–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maglinte DD, Gage SN, Harmon BH, et al. (1993) Obstruction of the small intestine: accuracy and role of CT in diagnosis. Radiology 188:61–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maglinte DDT, Balthazar EJ, Kevin FM, et al. (1997) The role of radiology in the diagnosis of small-bowel obstruction. Am J Roent 168:1171–1180Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Epstein JC, Wilson MS, Wilkosz S, et al. (2006) Human peritoneal adhesions show evidence of tissue remodeling and markers of angiogenesis. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1885–1892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sulaiman H, Gabella G, Davis C, et al. (2001) Presence and distribution of sensory nerve fibers in human peritoneal adhesions. Ann Surg 234:256–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrick SE (2000) Human peritoneal adhesions are highly cellular, innervated, and vascularized. J Pathol 192:67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swank DJ, Swank-Bordewijk SCG, Hop WCJ, et al. (2003) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomized controlled multi-centre trial. Lancet 361:1247–1251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peetz DJ Jr, Gamelli RL, Pilcher DB (1982) Intestinal intubation in acute, mechanical small-bowel obstruction. Arch Surg 117:334–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brolin RE (1983) The role of gastrointestinal tube decompression in the treatment of mechanical intestinal obstruction. Am Surg 49:131–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abbas SM, Bissett IP, Parry BR (2007) Meta-analysis of oral water-soluble contrast agent in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 94:404–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Menzies D, Parker M, Hoare R, et al. (2001) Small bowel obstruction due to postoperative adhesions: treatment patterns and associated costs in 110 hospital admissions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 83:40–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chopra R, McVay C, Phillips E, et al. (2003) Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. Am Surg 69:966–968PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sato Y, Ido K, Kumagai M, et al. (2001) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for recurrent small bowel obstruction: long-term follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 54:476–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wullstein C, Gross E (2003) Laparoscopic compared with conventional treatment of acute adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 90:1147–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chosidow D, Johanet H, Montariol T, et al. (2000) Laparoscopy for acute small bowel obstruction secondary to adhesions. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 10:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suter M, Zermatten P, Halkic N, et al. (2000) Laproscopic management of mechanical small bowel obstruction: are there predictors of success or failure? Surg Endosc 14:478–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, et al. (2004) Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 18:898–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, et al. (2003) Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 197:177–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diamond MP (1996) Reduction of adhesions after uterine myomectomy by Seprafilm membrane (HAL-F): a blinded, prospective, randomized multicenter clinical study. Seprafilm adhesion study group. Fertil Steril 66:904–910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Becker JM, Dayton MT, Fazio VW, et al. (1996) Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 183:297–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beck DE, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, et al. (2003) A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled study of the safety of Seprafilm® adhesion barrier in abdominopelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Col Rectum 46:1310–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vrijland WW, Tseng LNL, Eijkman HJM, et al. (2002) Fewer intraperitoneal adhesions with use of hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose membrane. A randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 235:193–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kudo FA, Nishibe T, Miyazaki K, et al. (2004) Use of bioresorbable membrane to prevent postoperative small bowel obstruction in transabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Surg Today 34:648–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mohri Y, Uchida K, Araki T, et al. (2005) Hyaluronic acid-carboxycellulose membrane (Seprafilm) reduces early postoperative small bowel obstruction in gastrointestinal surgery. Am Surg 71:861–863PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterologic and General Surgery, Department of SurgeryMayo Clinic College of MedicineRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations