Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparotomy for small-bowel obstruction: first choice or last resort for adhesiolysis? A laparoscopic approach for small-bowel obstruction reduces 30-day complications

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Small-bowel obstruction (SBO) requiring adhesiolysis is a frequent and costly problem in the United States with limited evidence regarding the most effective and safest surgical management. This study examines whether patients treated with laparoscopy for SBO have better 30-day surgical outcomes than their counterparts undergoing open procedures.

Methods

Patients with a diagnosis of adhesive SBO were selected from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2010. Cases were classified as either laparoscopic or open adhesiolysis groups using Common Procedural Terminology codes. Chi square and Student’s t test were used to compare patient and surgical characteristics with 30-day outcomes, including major complications, incisional complications, and mortality. Factors with p < 0.1 were included in the multivariable logistic regression for each outcome. A propensity score analysis for probability of being a laparoscopic case was used to address residual selection bias. A two-sided p value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Of the 9,619 SBO included in the analysis, 14.9 % adhesiolysis procedures were performed laparoscopically. Patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures had shorter mean operative times (77.2 vs. 94.2 min, p < 0.0001) and decreased postoperative length of stay (4.7 vs. 9.9 days, p < 0.0001). After controlling for comorbidities and surgical factors, patients having laparoscopic adhesiolysis were less likely to develop major complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.58–0.85, p < 0.0001] and incisional complications (OR = 0.22, 95 % CI 0.15–0.33, p < 0.0001). The 30-day mortality was 1.3 % in the laparoscopic group versus 4.7 % in the open group (OR = 0.55, 95 % CI 0.33–0.85, p = 0.024).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis requires a specific skill set and may not be appropriate in all patients. Notwithstanding this, the laparoscopic approach demonstrates a benefit in 30-day morbidity and mortality even after controlling for preoperative patient characteristics. Given these findings in more than 9,000 patients and consistent rates of SBO requiring surgical intervention in the United States, increasing the use of laparoscopy could be a feasible way of to decrease costs and improving outcomes in this population.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sikirica V, Bapat B, Candrilli SD, Davis KL, Wilson M, Johns A (2011) The inpatient burden of abdominal and gynecological adhesiolysis in the US. BMC Surg 11:13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scott FI, Osterman MT, Mahmoud NN, Lewis JD (2012) Secular trends in small-bowel obstruction and adhesiolysis in the United States: 1988–2007. Am J Surg 204(3):315–320

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fevang BT, Fevang J, Lie SA, Soreide O, Svanes K, Viste A (2004) Long-term prognosis after operation for adhesive small bowel obstruction. Ann Surg 240(2):193–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Duron JJ, Silva NJ, Du Montcel ST et al (2006) Adhesive postoperative small bowel obstruction: incidence and risk factors of recurrence after surgical treatment—a multicenter prospective study. Ann Surg 244(5):750–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Suter M, Zermatten P, Halkic N, Martinet O, Bettschart V (2000) Laparoscopic management of mechanical small bowel obstruction: Are there predictors of success or failure? Surg Endosc 14(5):478–483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Borzellino G, Tasselli S, Zerman G, Pedrazzani C, Manzoni G (2004) Laparoscopic approach to postoperative adhesive obstruction. Surg Endosc 18(4):686–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khaikin M, Schneidereit N, Cera S et al (2007) Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for acute adhesive small-bowel obstruction: patients’ outcome and cost-effectiveness. Surg Endosc 21(5):742–746

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Angenete E, Jacobsson A, Gellerstedt M, Haglind E (2012) Effect of laparoscopy on the risk of small-bowel obstruction: a population-based register study. Arch Surg (Chicago, IL 1960) 147(4):359–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Williams SB, Greenspon J, Young HA, Orkin BA (2005) Small bowel obstruction: conservative vs. surgical management. Dis Colon Rectum 48(6):1140–1146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Franklin ME Jr, Gonzalez JJ Jr, Miter DB, Glass JL, Paulson D (2004) Laparoscopic diagnosis and treatment of intestinal obstruction. Surg Endosc 18(1):26–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kirshtein B, Roy-Shapira A, Lantsberg L, Avinoach E, Mizrahi S (2005) Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction. Surg Endosc 19(4):464–467

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lujan HJ, Oren A, Plasencia G et al (2006) Laparoscopic management as the initial treatment of acute small bowel obstruction. JSLS 10(4):466–472

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Szomstein S, Lo Menzo E, Simpfendorfer C, Zundel N, Rosenthal RJ (2006) Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. World J Surg 30(4):535–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zerey M, Sechrist CW, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Matthews BD, Heniford BT (2007) Laparoscopic management of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Am Surg 73(8):773–778 discussion 778–779

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dindo D, Schafer M, Muller MK, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D (2010) Laparoscopy for small bowel obstruction: the reason for conversion matters. Surg Endosc 24(4):792–797

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grafen FC, Neuhaus V, Schob O, Turina M (2010) Management of acute small bowel obstruction from intestinal adhesions: indications for laparoscopic surgery in a community teaching hospital. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 395(1):57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tierris I, Mavrantonis C, Stratoulias C, Panousis G, Mpetsou A, Kalochristianakis N (2011) Laparoscopy for acute small bowel obstruction: indication or contraindication? Surg Endosc 25(2):531–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Connor DB, Winter DC (2012) The role of laparoscopy in the management of acute small-bowel obstruction: a review of over 2,000 cases. Surg Endosc 26(1):12–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cirocchi R, Abraha I, Farinella E, Montedori A, Sciannameo F (2010) Laparoscopic versus open surgery in small bowel obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007511

    Google Scholar 

  20. Khuri SF (2005) The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery 138(5):837–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fleming FJ, Francone TD, Kim MJ, Gunzler D, Messing S, Monson JR (2011) A laparoscopic approach does reduce short-term complications in patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 54(2):176–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. ACS NSQIP: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria. http://site.acsnsqip.org/program-specifics/inclusionexclusion-criteria-4/. Accessed 13 April 2013

  23. Hart A, Stegman M (2007) ICD-9-CM Expert. Ingenix, USA

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gabbert W, Kachur K, Canter K (2010) Current procedural coding expert 2011. Ingenix, USA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wullstein C, Gross E (2003) Laparoscopic compared with conventional treatment of acute adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 90(9):1147–1151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mancini GJ, Petroski GF, Lin WC, Sporn E, Miedema BW, Thaler K (2008) Nationwide impact of laparoscopic lysis of adhesions in the management of intestinal obstruction in the US. J Am Coll Surg 207(4):520–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None.

Disclosures

Drs. Kristin Kelly, James Iannuzzi, Aaron Rickles, Veerabhadram Garimella, John R.T. Monson, and Fergal Fleming have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgical Health Outcomes & Research Enterprise, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave., Box SURG, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA

    Kristin N. Kelly, James C. Iannuzzi, Aaron S. Rickles, Veerabhadram Garimella, John R. T. Monson & Fergal J. Fleming

Authors
  1. Kristin N. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James C. Iannuzzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aaron S. Rickles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Veerabhadram Garimella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John R. T. Monson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fergal J. Fleming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin N. Kelly.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Patient and operative characteristics by propensity quartile and surgical approach
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelly, K.N., Iannuzzi, J.C., Rickles, A.S. et al. Laparotomy for small-bowel obstruction: first choice or last resort for adhesiolysis? A laparoscopic approach for small-bowel obstruction reduces 30-day complications. Surg Endosc 28, 65–73 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3162-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3162-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation