Skip to main content
Log in

Adhesion-Related Complications Are Common, But Rarely Discussed in Preoperative Consent: A Multicenter Study

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Peritoneal adhesions are recognized as an important cause for patient morbidity, but complications related to adhesions occur relatively late after the original operation. Therefore preoperative consent may not adequately reflect the proportions of the problem.

Methods

A total of 200 patients admitted for intraperitoneal operations at six hospitals were prospectively reviewed to identify whether adhesion-related complications were documented as possible adverse events in their respective consent forms.

Results

Adhesion-related complications were documented in 8.5% (n = 17) of consent forms (bowel obstruction n = 8, requirement for further operations n = 5, difficult reoperation n = 1, pain n = 3). A direct relationship with adhesions was noted in n = 9 of these consent forms.

Conclusions

Preoperative informed consent does not adequately reflect the magnitude of adhesion-related problems. These findings have immediate implications for clinical practice.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parker MC, Wilson MS, van Goor H et al (2007) Adhesions and colorectal surgery—call for action. Colorectal Dis 9(Suppl 2):66–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN et al (1999) Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 353:1476–1480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Menzies D, Ellis H (1990) Intestinal obstruction from adhesions—how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72:60–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ellis H (1997) The clinical significance of adhesions: focus on intestinal obstruction. Eur J Surg Suppl 577:5–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stovall TG, Elder RF, Ling FW (1989) Predictors of pelvic adhesions. J Reprod Med 34:345–348

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tulandi T, Collins JA, Burrows E et al (1990) Treatment-dependent and treatment-independent pregnancy among women with periadnexal adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 162:354–357

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Marana R, Rizzi M, Muzii L et al (1995) Correlation between the American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions and distal tubal occlusion, salpingoscopy, and reproductive outcome in tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 64:924–929

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Der Krabben AA, Dijkstra FR, Nieuwenhuijzen M et al (2000) Morbidity and mortality of inadvertent enterotomy during adhesiotomy. Br J Surg 87:467–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson MS (2007) Practicalities and costs of adhesions. Colorectal Dis 9(Suppl 2):60–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ellis H (2004) Medicolegal consequences of adhesions. Hosp Med 65:348–350

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D et al (2005) The SCAR-3 study: 5-year adhesion-related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures. Colorectal Dis 7:551–558

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. DeWilde RL, Trew G (2007) Postoperative abdominal adhesions and their prevention in gynaecological surgery. Expert consensus position. Part 2—steps to reduce adhesions. Gynecol Surg 4:243–253 (review)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhardwaj R, Parker MC (2007) Impact of adhesions in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 9(Suppl 2):45–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grant HW, Parker MC, Wilson MS et al (2008) Adhesions after abdominal surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 43:152–156; discussion 156–157

  16. 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 83:40–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zbar RI, Crede WB, McKhann CF et al (1993) 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 57:123–127

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahlberg G, Bergdahl S, Rutqvist J et al (1997) Mechanical small-bowel obstruction after conventional appendectomy in children. Eur J Pediatr Surg 7:13–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 42:241–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nieuwenhuijzen M, Reijnen MM, Kuijpers JH et al (1998) Small bowel obstruction after total or subtotal colectomy: a 10-year retrospective review. Br J Surg 85:1242–1245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. MacLean AR, Cohen Z, MacRae HM et al (2002) Risk of small bowel obstruction after the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 235:200–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fazio VW, Ziv Y, Church JM et al (1995) Ileal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients. Ann Surg 222:120–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Marcello PW, Roberts PL, Schoetz DJ et al (1993) Obstruction after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a preventable complication? Dis Colon Rectum 36:1105–1111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Francois Y, Dozois RR, Kelly KA et al (1989) Small intestinal obstruction complicating ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 209:46–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cole A (2008) GMC asks doctors to take greater care over consent after law changes. BMJ 336:1152–1153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Skene L, Smallwood R (2002) Informed consent: lessons from Australia. BMJ 324:39–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mazur DJ (2003) Influence of the law on risk and informed consent. BMJ 327:731–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ellis H (2001) Medicolegal consequences of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions. J R Soc Med 94:331–332

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the kind help of Umar Ahmad, Dilshad Marikar, Erden Ali, Mohsin Badat, and Ali Alim-Mastavi in collecting data at their respective hospitals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taufiek Konrad Rajab.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rajab, T.K., Wallwiener, M., Talukdar, S. et al. Adhesion-Related Complications Are Common, But Rarely Discussed in Preoperative Consent: A Multicenter Study. World J Surg 33, 748–750 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9917-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9917-x

Keywords

Navigation