World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 535–540 | Cite as

Laparoscopic Lysis of Adhesions

  • Samuel Szomstein
  • Emanuele Lo Menzo
  • Conrad Simpfendorfer
  • Nathan Zundel
  • Raul J. Rosenthal



Intra-abdominal adhesions constitute between 49% and 74% of the causes of small bowel obstruction. Traditionally, laparotomy and open adhesiolysis have been the treatment for patients who have failed conservative measures or when clinical and physiologic derangements suggest toxemia and/or ischemia. With the increased popularity of laparoscopy, recent promising reports indicate the feasibility and potential superiority of the minimally invasive approach to the adhesion-encased abdomen.


The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of laparoscopic adhesiolysis and to provide technical tips that help in the success of this technique.


The most important predictive factor of adhesion formation is a history of previous abdominal surgery ranging from 67%–93% in the literature. Conversely, 31% of scars from previous surgery have been free of adhesions, whereas up to 10% of patients without any prior surgical scars will have spontaneous adhesions of the bowel or omentum. Most intestinal obstructions follow open lower abdominopelvic surgeries such as colectomy, appendectomy, and hysterectomy. The most common complications associated with adhesions are small bowel obstruction (SBO) and chronic pain syndrome. The treatment of uncomplicated SBO is generally conservative, especially with incomplete obstruction and the absence of systemic toxemia, ischemia, or strangulation. When conservative treatment fails, surgical options include conventional open or minimally invasive approaches; the latter have become increasing more popular for lysis of adhesions and the treatment of SBO. Generally, 63% of the length of a laparotomy incision is involved in adhesion formation to the abdominal wall. Furthermore, the incidence of ventral hernia after a laparotomy ranges between 11% and 20% versus the 0.02%–2.4% incidence of port site herniation. Additional benefits of the minimally invasive approaches include a decreased incidence of wound infection and postoperative pneumonia and a more rapid return of bowel function resulting in a shorter hospital stay. In long-term follow up, the success rate of laparoscopic lysis of adhesions remains between 46% and 87%. Operative times for laparoscopy range from 58 to 108 minutes; conversion rates range from 6.7% to 43%; and the incidence of intraoperative enterotomy ranges from 3% to 17.6%. The length of hospitalization is 4–6 days in most series.


Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions seems to be safe in the hands of well-trained laparoscopic surgeons. This technique should be mastered by the advanced laparoscopic surgeon not only for its usefulness in the pathologies discussed here but also for adhesions commonly encountered during other laparoscopic procedures.


Small Bowel Obstruction Ventral Hernia Adhesion Formation Chronic Abdominal Pain Laparotomy Incision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions—how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990;72:60–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pickleman J. Small bowel obstruction. In Zinner MJ, editor, Maingot’s Abdominal Operations, London, Prentice-Hall, 1997;1159–1172Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Welch P. Adhesions. In Welch JP, editor, Bowel Obstruction, Philadelphia, Saunders, 1990;154–165Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris EA. Reoperation on the abdomen encased in adhesions. Am J Surg 2002;184:499–504; discussion 504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kahi CJ. Bowel obstruction and pseudo-obstruction. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2003;32:1229–1247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bizer LS. Small bowel obstruction: the role of nonoperative treatment in simple intestinal obstruction and predictive criteria for strangulation obstruction. Surgery 1981;89:407–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck DE, Opelka FG, Baily HR, et al. Incidence of small bowel obstruction and adhesiolysis after open colorectal and general surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:241–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weibel MA, Majno G. Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 1973;126:345–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, van den Tol MP, et al. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 2000;343:392–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, et al. Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999;353:1456–1457Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duepree HJ. Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197:177–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chopra R. Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. Am Surg 2003;69:966–968PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akman PC. A study of five hundred incisional hernias. J Int Coll Surg 1962;37:125–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sato Y. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for recurrent small bowel obstruction: long-term follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:476–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, et al. Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 2004;18:898–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Di Lorenzo N. [Impact of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of chronic abdominal pain syndrome] Chir Ital 2002;54:367–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stringel G. Laparoscopy in the management of children with chronic recurrent abdominal pain. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 1999; 3:215–219Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herrick SE. Human peritoneal adhesions are highly cellular, innervated, and vascularized. J Pathol 2000;192:67–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khaitan L. Results after laparoscopic lysis of adhesions and placement of Seprafilm for intractable abdominal pain. Surg Endosc 2003;17:247–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Swank DJ, Van Erp WF, Repelaer Van Driel OJ, et al. A prospective analysis of predictive factors on the results of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2003;13:88–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salky BA, Laparoscopic enteroclysis. In Phillips EH, Rosenthal RJ, editors, Operative Strategies in Laparoscopic Surgery. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1995;207–210Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swank DJ, Swank-Bordewijk SC, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomized controlled multicenter trial. Lancet 2003;361:1247–1251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bastug DF, Trammell SW, Boland JP, et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1991;1:259–262Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Franklin ME Jr, Dorman JP, Pharand D. Laparoscopic surgery in acute small bowel obstruction. Surg Laparose Endosc 1994;4:289–296Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frager DH, Baer JW. Role of CT in evaluating patients with small bowel obstruction. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 1995;16:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarr MG, Bulkley GB, Zuidema GD. Preoperative recognition of intestinal strangulation: prospective evaluation of diagnostic capability. Am J Surg 1983;145:176–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bryk D. Functional evaluation of small bowel obstruction by successive abdominal roentgenograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1972;116:262–275Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maglinte DDT. Peterson LA, Uahey TN, et al. Enteroclysis in partial small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 1984;147:325–329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Balthazar EJ, Birnbaum BA, Megibow AJ, et al. Closed loop and strangulating intestinal obstruction: CT signs. Radiology 1992;185:769–775PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frager D. Intestinal obstruction role of CT. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2002;31:777–799CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibrahim IM, Wolodiger F, Sussman B, et al. Laparoscopic management of acute small-bowel obstruction. Surg Endosc 1996;10:1012–1015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Navez B, Arimont JM, Gujiot P. Laparoscopic approach in acute small bowel obstruction. A review of 68 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 1998;45:2146–2150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peritoneal adhesiolysis. In National Inpatient Profile 1993. Baltimore: HCIA Inc, 1994;653–655Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ray NF, Larsen Jr JW, Stillman RJ, et al. Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176:271–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Halpern NB. The difficult laparoscopy. Surg Clin North Am 1996;76:603–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nieuwenhuijzen M, Reijnen MM, Kuijpers JH, et al. Small bowel obstruction after total or subtotal colectomy: a 10-year retrospective review. Br J Surg 1998;85:1242–1245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zbar RI, Crede WB, McKhann CF, et al. The postoperative incidence of small bowel obstruction following standard, open appendectomy and cholecystectomy: a six-year retrospective cohort study at Yale-New Haven Hospital. Conn Med 1993;57:123–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Becker JM, Dayton MT, Fazio VW, et al. Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membranea prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 1996;183:297–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Akman PC. A study of five hundred incisional hernias. J Int Coll Surg 1962;37:125–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Montz FJ, Holschneider CH, Munro MG. Incisional hernias following laparoscopy: a survey of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:881–884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pekmezci S, Altinli E, Saribeyoglu K, et al. Enteroclysis-guided laparoscopic adhesiolysis in recurrent adhesive small bowel obstruction. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2001;12:165–170Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Levard H, Boudet M, Msika S, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of acute small bowel obstruction: a multicentre retrospective study. Aust N Z J Surg 2001;71:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Suter M, Zermatten P, Hakie N, et al. Laparoscopic management of mechanical small bowel obstruction: are there predictors of success of failure? Surg Endosc 2000;14:478–484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Al-Mulhim AA. Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction: experience from a Saudi teaching hospital. Surg Endosc 2000;14:157–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chosidow D, Johanet H, Montario T, et al. Laparoscopy for acute small-bowel obstruction secondary to adhesions. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2000;10:155–159Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Strickland P, Lourie DJ, Suddleson EA, et al. Is laparoscopy safe and effective for treatment of acute small-bowel obstruction? Surg Endosc 1999;13:695–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leon EL, Metzger A, Tsiotos GG, et al. Laparoscopic management of small bowel obstruction: indications and outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:132–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bailey IS, Rhodes M, O’Rourke N, et al. Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 1998;85:84–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nagle A, Ujiki M, Denham W, et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstructions. Am J Surg 2004;187:464–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Szomstein
    • 1
  • Emanuele Lo Menzo
    • 1
  • Conrad Simpfendorfer
    • 1
  • Nathan Zundel
    • 1
  • Raul J. Rosenthal
    • 1
  1. 1.Bariatric Institute, Section of Minimally Invasive SurgeryCleveland Clinic FloridaWestonUSA

Personalised recommendations