Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 2516–2521 | Cite as

Survey of opinions on operative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the state of connecticut

  • Tolutope Oyasiji
  • Scott W. Helton
Article

Abstract

Background

This study sought to know the opinions of general surgeons registered in the state of Connecticut about their use of laparoscopic lysis of adhesions (LLA) to manage adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) compared with open lysis of adhesions (OLA) in terms of safety, contraindications, and outcomes.

Methods

A questionnaire was designed to gather the opinions of general surgeons registered in Connecticut on this topic. The questionnaire was administered electronically and through the mail.

Results

Of the 205 general surgeons to whom the questionnaire was sent, 87 completed it (42% response). The respondents were evenly distributed throughout Connecticut. Of these respondents, 9% were university teaching hospital faculty, 55% were community teaching hospital based, and 36% were community nonteaching hospital based. The answers to the questions were expressed as percentages and differences between groups tested using Fisher’s exact test, with the significance level set at a P value less than 0.05. According to their self-reports, 60% of the respondents used LLA in their practice, with 38% of this group using LLA for less than 15% of their adhesive SBO cases. Compared with surgeons out of training less than 15 years, a greater number of surgeons out of training more than 15 years considered LLA to be safer (P = 0.03) and to have better outcomes (P = 0.04) than OLA. More surgeons in academic/teaching settings considered LLA to be safe than did surgeons in nonacademic/nonteaching settings (P = 0.04), and more members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES)/Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons (SLS) considered LLA to be safe than nonmembers (P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Many surgeons do not perform LLA for reasons that differ from those in the surgical literature, which supports LLA. Surgeons recently trained or with membership in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) societies are more likely to use LLA. These data suggest that recent training and interest or membership in MIS associations influence surgeons’ choice for LLA. This survey demonstrated that an opportunity exists to improve patient outcomes with education about the merits of LLA in the state of Connecticut.

Keywords

Adhesive small bowel obstruction Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions Open lysis of adhesions Small bowel obstruction 

Notes

Disclosures

Tolutope Oyasiji and Scott W. Helton have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Menzies D, Ellis H (1990) Intestinal obstruction from adhesions: how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72:60–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pickleman J (1997) Small bowel obstruction. In: Zinner MJ (ed) Maingot’s abdominal operations. Prentice-Hall, London, pp 1159–1172Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Welch P (1990) Adhesions. In: Welch JP (ed) Bowel obstruction. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 154–165Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris EA (2002) Reoperation on the abdomen encased in adhesions. Am J Surg 184:499–504 discussion 504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kahi CJ (2003) Bowel obstruction and pseudo-obstruction. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 32:1229–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bizer LS (1981) Small bowel obstruction: the role of nonoperative treatment in simple intestinal obstruction and predictive criteria for strangulation obstruction. Surgery 89:407–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Landercasper J, Cogbill TH, Merry WH et al (1993) Long-term outcome after hospitalization for small bowel obstruction. Arch Surg 128:765–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barkan H, Webster S, Ozeran S (1995) Factors predicting the recurrence of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 170:361–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mancini GJ, Petroski GF, Lin W, Sporn E, Miedena BW, Thaler K (2008) Nationwide impact of laparoscopic lysis of adhesions in the management of intestinal obstruction in the U.S. J Am Coll Surg 207:520–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Batsug DF, Trammell SW, Boland JP et al (1991) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction. Surg Laprosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1:259–262Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Navez B, Arimont JM, Guiot P (1998) Laparoscopic approach in acute small bowel obstruction: a review of 68 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 45:2146–2150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zerey M, Sechrist CW, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Matthews BD, Heniford BT (2007) Laparoscopic management of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Am Surg 73:773–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Szomstein S, Menzo EL, Simpfendorfer C, Zundel N, Rosenthal RJ (2006) Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. World J Surg 30:535–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryHospital of Saint RaphaelNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations