Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for adhesional small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case–control studies

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) due to adhesions is a common acute surgical presentation. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is being performed more frequently. However, the clear benefits of laparoscopic adhesiolysis (LA) compared with traditional open adhesiolysis (OA) remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for SBO due to adhesions.

Methods

A systemic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case-controlled studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for SBO. Data were extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.

Results

There were no RCT. Data from 18 CCS on 38,927 patients (LA = 5,729 and OA = 33,389) were analysed. A meta-analysis showed that LA for SBO has decreased overall mortality (LA = 1.6% vs. OA = 4.9%, p < 0.001) and morbidity (LA = 11.2% vs. OA = 30.9%, p < 0.001). Similarly, the incidences of specific complications are significantly lower in the LA group. There are significantly lower reoperation rate (LA = 4.5% vs. OA = 6.5%, p = 0.017), shorter average operating time (LA = 89 min vs. OA = 104 min, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (LOS) (LA = 6.7 days vs. OA = 11.6 days, p < 0.001) in the LA group. In the CCS, there is likely to be a selection bias favouring less complex adhesions in the LA group that may contribute to the better outcomes in this group.

Conclusions

Although there is a probable selection bias, these results suggest that LA for SBO in selected patients has a reduced mortality, morbidity, reoperation rate, average operating time and LOS compared with OA. LA should be considered in appropriately selected patients with acute SBO due to adhesions.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vettoretto N, Carrara A, Corradi A, De Vivo G, Lazzaro L, Ricciardelli L et al (2012) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: consensus conference guidelines. Colorectal Dis 14(5):e208–e215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller G, Boman J, Shrier I, Gordon PH (2000) Natural history of patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 87(9):1240–1247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cox MR, Gunn IF, Eastman MC, Hunt RF, Heinz AW (1993) The operative aetiology and types of adhesions causing small bowel obstruction. Aust N Z J Surg 63(11):848–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller G, Boman J, Shrier I, Gordon PH (2000) Etiology of small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 180(1):33–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Colonna AL, Byrge NR, Nelson SD, Nelson RE, Hunter MC, Nirula R (2016) Nonoperative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: what is the break point? Am J Surg 212(6):1214–1221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cox MR, Gunn IF, Eastman MC, Hunt RF, Heinz AW (1993) The safety and duration of non-operative treatment for adhesive small bowel obstruction. Aust N Z J Surg 63(5):367–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barkan H, Webster S, Ozeran S (1995) Factors predicting the recurrence of adhesive small-bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 170(4):361–365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beck DE, Opelka FG, Bailey HR, Rauh SM, Pashos CL (1999) Incidence of small-bowel obstruction and adhesiolysis after open colorectal and general surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 42(2):241–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mouret P (1994) L’adhesiolise coelioscopique. In: Testas P, Delaitre B (eds) Chirurgie Digestive par Voie Coelioscopique, pp. 53–69

  10. Bastug DF, Trammell SW, Boland JP, Mantz EP, Tiley EH (1991) 3rd. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(4):259–262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wiggins T, Markar SR, Harris A (2015) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for acute small bowel obstruction: systematic review and pooled analysis. Surg Endosc 29(12):3432–3442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sajid MS, Khawaja AH, Sains P, Singh KK, Baig MK (2016) A systematic review comparing laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesional small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 212(1):138–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. F Y (1934) Contingency tables involving small numbers and the χ2 test. J R Stat Soc 1(2):217–235

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haviland MG (1990) Yates’s correction for continuity and the analysis of 2 × 2 contingency tables. Stat Med 9(4):363–367; (discussion 9–83)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sallinen V, Wikstrom H, Victorzon M, Salminen P, Koivukangas V, Haukijarvi E et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction—a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. BMC Surg 14:77

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Mathieu X, Thill V, Simoens C, Smets D, Ngongang C, Debergh N et al (2008) Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction: a retrospective study on 156 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 55(82–83):522–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chopra R, McVay C, Phillips E, Khalili TM (2003) Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. Am Surg 69(11):966–968

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Khaikin M, Schneidereit N, Cera S, Sands D, Efron J, Weiss EG 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 

  23. 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 

  24. 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. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(1):57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson KN, Chapital AB, Harold KL, Merritt MV, Johnson DJ (2012) Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction: evaluating the need for resection. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72(1):25–30; (discussion–1; quiz 317)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Okamoto H, Wakana H, Kawashima K, Fukasawa T, Fujii H (2012) Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic adhesiolysis for mechanical small bowel obstruction. Asian J Endosc Surg 5(2):53–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Davies SW, Gillen JR, Guidry CA, Newhook TE, Pope NH, Hranjec T et al (2014) A comparative analysis between laparoscopic and open adhesiolysis at a tertiary care center. Am Surg 80(3):261–269

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kelly KN, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Garimella V, Monson JR, Fleming FJ (2014) 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(1):65–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lombardo S, Baum K, Filho JD, Nirula R (2014) Should adhesive small bowel obstruction be managed laparoscopically? A national surgical quality improvement program propensity score analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 76(3):696–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Saleh F, Ambrosini L, Jackson T, Okrainec A (2014) Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of small bowel obstruction: an analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 28(8):2381–2386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Byrne J, Saleh F, Ambrosini L, Quereshy F, Jackson TD, Okrainec A (2015) Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: a comparison of outcomes. Surg Endosc 29(9):2525–2532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sharma R, Reddy S, Thoman D, Grotts J, Ferrigno L (2015) Laparoscopic versus open bowel resection in emergency small bowel obstruction: analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25(8):625–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin H, Li J, Xie Z, Zhang W, Lv X (2016) Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction: a single-center retrospective case-control study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26(3):244–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hackenberg T, Mentula P, Leppaniemi A, Sallinen V (2017) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute adhesive small-bowel obstruction: a propensity score-matched analysis. Scand J Surg 106(1):28–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nordin A, Freedman J (2016) Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of small bowel obstruction: an analysis of clinical outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(10):4454–4463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yao S, Tanaka E, Matsui Y, Ikeda A, Murakami T, Okumoto T et al (2017) Does laparoscopic adhesiolysis decrease the risk of recurrent symptoms in small bowel obstruction? A propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 31(12):5348–5355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Behman R, Nathens AB, Byrne JP, Mason S, Look Hong N, Karanicolas PJ (2017) Laparoscopic surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction is associated with a higher risk of bowel injury: a population-based analysis of 8584 patients. Ann Surg 266(3):489–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S et al (2015) Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 18:196–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pascual M, Salvans S, Pera M (2016) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations. World J Gastroenterol 22(2):704–717

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Jimenez Rodriguez RM, Segura-Sampedro JJ, Flores-Cortes M, Lopez-Bernal F, Martin C, Diaz VP et al (2016) Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies. World J Gastroenterol 22(9):2701–2710

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Navez B, Navez J (2014) Laparoscopy in the acute abdomen. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 28(1):3–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mandrioli M, Inaba K, Piccinini A, Biscardi A, Sartelli M, Agresta F et al (2016) Advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma. World J Gastroenterol 22(2):668–680

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K (2012) Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg 16(10):1929–1939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tiret L, Hatton F, Desmonts JM, Vourc’h G (1988) Prediction of outcome of anaesthesia in patients over 40 years: a multifactorial risk index. Stat Med 7(9):947–954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T (1996) ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 77(2):217–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Genc V, Sulaimanov M, Cipe G, Basceken SI, Erverdi N, Gurel M et al (2011) What necessitates the conversion to open cholecystectomy? A retrospective analysis of 5164 consecutive laparoscopic operations. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 66(3):417–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sakpal SV, Bindra SS, Chamberlain RS (2010) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion rates two decades later. JSLS 14(4):476–483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Sakpal SV, Bindra SS, Chamberlain RS (2012) Laparoscopic appendectomy conversion rates two decades later: an analysis of surgeon and patient-specific factors resulting in open conversion. J Surg Res 176(1):42–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Li X, Zhang J, Sang L, Zhang W, Chu Z, Li X et al (2010) Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy–a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol 10:129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Surgery, The Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, Nepean Hospital, The University of Sydney, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    Gaik S. Quah, Guy D. Eslick & Michael R. Cox

  2. Discipline of Surgery, The University of Sydney Nepean Hospital, Level 5, South Block, P.O. Box 63, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia

    Michael R. Cox

Authors
  1. Gaik S. Quah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guy D. Eslick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael R. Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Cox.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Gaik S. Quah, Guy D. Eslick and Michael R. Coxhas have no conflicts of interest and financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quah, G.S., Eslick, G.D. & Cox, M.R. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for adhesional small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case–control studies. Surg Endosc 33, 3209–3217 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6604-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6604-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation