Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 14, Issue 10, pp 1619–1628 | Cite as

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

  • Galinos Barmparas
  • Bernardino C. Branco
  • Beat Schnüriger
  • Lydia Lam
  • Kenji Inaba
  • Demetrios Demetriades
Review Article

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.

Keywords

Adhesive small bowel obstruction Early small bowel obstruction Late small bowel obstruction Postoperative small bowel obstruction 

References

  1. 1.
    Deference CJ, Lucas CA, Buie VC, Golosinskiy A. 2006 National Hospital Discharge Survey. National Health Statistics Reports; 2008. Report No. 5Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    London: Central Statistical Office. Social Trends. 1995. Report No. 25Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    Riber C, Soe K, Jorgensen T, Tonnesen H. Intestinal obstruction after appendectomy. Scand J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 1997;32(11):1125–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andersson RE. Small bowel obstruction after appendectomy. Br J Surg [Internet]. 2001;88(10):1387–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weigelt JA, Kingman RG. Complications of negative laparotomy for trauma. Am J Surg [Internet]. 1988;156(6):544–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ellis H, Heddle R. Does the peritoneum need to be closed at laparotomy? Br J Surg [Internet]. 1977;64(10):733–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gilbert JM, Ellis H, Foweraker S. Peritoneal closure after lateral paramedian incision. Br J Surg [Internet]. 1987;74(2):113–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):3–8Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cade D, Ellis H. The peritoneal reaction to starch and its modification by prednisone. Eur Surg Res [Internet]. 1976;8(5):471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Woodfield JC, Rodgers M, Windsor JA. Peritoneal gallstones following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Incidence, complications, and management. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2004;18(8):1200–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zehetner J, Shamiyeh A, Wayand W. Lost gallstones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: All possible complications. Am J Surg [Internet]. 2007;193(1):73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sax HC, Adams JT. The fate of the spilled gallstone. Arch Surg [Internet]. 1993;128(4):469.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huynh T, Mercer D. Early postoperative small bowel obstruction caused by spilled gallstones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery [Internet]. 1996;119(3):352–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Williams MD, Collins JN, Wright TF, Fenoglio ME. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. South Med J [Internet]. 1996;89(7):668–674.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Becker JM, Stucchi AF. Proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg [Internet]. 2004;8(4):376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Vasilevsky CA, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM. The S ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World J Surg [Internet]. 1987;11(6):742–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.Google Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Renz BM, Feliciano DV. Unnecessary laparotomies for trauma: A prospective study of morbidity. J Trauma [Internet]. 1995;38(3):350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Galinos Barmparas
    • 1
  • Bernardino C. Branco
    • 1
  • Beat Schnüriger
    • 1
  • Lydia Lam
    • 1
  • Kenji Inaba
    • 1
  • Demetrios Demetriades
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical CareLos Angeles County Medical Center–University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations