BackgroundAdhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency, causing high morbidity and even some mortality. The adhesions causing such bowel obstructions are typically the footprints of previous abdominal surgical procedures. The present paper presents a revised version of the Bologna guidelines to evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of ASBO. The working group has added paragraphs on prevention of ASBO and special patient groups.MethodsThe guideline was written under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery by the ASBO working group. A systematic literature search was performed prior to the update of the guidelines to identify relevant new papers on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of ASBO. Literature was critically appraised according to an evidence-based guideline development method. Final recommendations were approved by the workgroup, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusion.RecommendationsAdhesion formation might be reduced by minimally invasive surgical techniques and the use of adhesion barriers. Non-operative treatment is effective in most patients with ASBO. Contraindications for non-operative treatment include peritonitis, strangulation, and ischemia. When the adhesive etiology of obstruction is unsure, or when contraindications for non-operative management might be present, CT is the diagnostic technique of choice. The principles of non-operative treatment are nil per os, naso-gastric, or long-tube decompression, and intravenous supplementation with fluids and electrolytes. When operative treatment is required, a laparoscopic approach may be beneficial for selected cases of simple ASBO.Younger patients have a higher lifetime risk for recurrent ASBO and might therefore benefit from application of adhesion barriers as both primary and secondary prevention.DiscussionThis guideline presents recommendations that can be used by surgeons who treat patients with ASBO. Scientific evidence for some aspects of ASBO management is scarce, in particular aspects relating to special patient groups. Results of a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for ASBO are awaited.

No abstract

BackgroundPrevious research on the costs of treatment for ASBO is outdated and often based on reimbursements, rather than true healthcare provider costs of the admission and related interventions. An accurate estimate of the true costs of treatment is necessary to understand the healthcare burden and to model cost-efficacy of adhesion strategies. The aim of this study was to provide an accurate cost estimate of the in-hospital costs for treatment of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) using micro-costing methods.MethodsConsecutive patients admitted for ASBO to the Radboud University Medical Center from November 2013 to November 2015 were included. An episode of ASBO was defined as an admission for SBO with operative confirmation of adhesions or after radiological exclusion of other causes for SBO. For the purpose of generalization we used the costs of medication and interventions as provided by the Dutch Healthcare Authority and only if these were not available local hospital costs. We evaluated costs separately for operative and non-operative treatment for ASBO.ResultsDuring the study period 39 admissions for ASBO were eligible for analysis. An operative treatment was required in 19 patients (48.7 %). Mean hospital stay for ASBO with operative treatment was 16.0 ± 11 days versus 4.0 ± 2.0 days for non-operative treatment (P = 0.003). A total of 12 patients developed complications, 2 in the non-operative group (10 %) and 10 in the operative group (52.6 %; P = 0.004). Overall costs for an admission for ASBO with operative treatment were €16 305 (SD €2 513), and for non-operative treatment € 2 277 (SD € 265) (p = <0.001). The highest expenditure with operative treatment for ASBO was made for ward stay (mean €7 856, SD €6 882), OR time (mean €2 6845, SD €1 434), ICU stay (mean €2 183, SD €4 305) and (parenteral) feeding costs (mean €1797, SD €2070). A table with correction coefficient to correct for differences in price levels for goods and services between different countries has been added.ConclusionThe in-hospital costs of an admission for ASBO are higher than previously thought. These costs can be used to guide hospital reimbursement policy and for the development of a cost-effective model for the use of adhesion barriers.

BACKGROUND Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is one of the most frequent causes of emergency hospital admissions and surgical treatment. Current surgical treatment of ASBO consists of open adhesiolysis. With laparoscopic procedures rising, the question arises if laparoscopy for ASBO is safe and results in better patient outcomes. Although adhesiolysis was among the first surgical procedures to be approached laparoscopically, uncertainty remains about its potential advantages over open surgery. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the benefits and harms of laparoscopic surgery for ASBO. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted for articles published up to May 2019. Two reviewers screened all articles and did the quality assessment. Consecutively a meta-analysis was performed. To reduce selection bias, only matched studies were used in our primary analyses. All other studies were used in a sensitivity analyses. All the outcomes were measured within the 30th postoperative day. Core outcome parameters were postoperative mortality, iatrogenic bowel perforations, length of postoperative stay [days], severe postoperative complications, and early readmissions. Secondary outcomes were operative time [min], missed iatrogenic bowel perforations, time to flatus [days], and early unplanned reoperations. RESULTS In our meta-analysis, 14 studies (participants = 37.007) were included: 1 randomized controlled trial, 2 matched studies, and 11 unmatched studies. Results of our primary analyses show no significant differences in core outcome parameters (postoperative mortality, iatrogenic bowel perforations, length of postoperative stay, severe postoperative complications, early readmissions). In sensitivity analyses, laparoscopic surgery favored open adhesiolysis in postoperative mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.29–0.45), length of postoperative hospital stay (mean difference [MD], −4.19; 95% CI, −4.43 to −3.95), operative time (MD, −18.19; 95% CI, −20.98 to −15.40), time to flatus (MD, −0.98; 95% CI, −1.28 to −0.68), severe postoperative complications (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46–0.56) and early unplanned reoperations (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.96). CONCLUSION Results of this systematic review indicate that laparoscopic surgery for ASBO is safe and feasible. Laparoscopic surgery is not associated with better or worse postoperative outcomes compared with open adhesiolysis. Future research should focus on the correct selection of those patients who are suitable for laparoscopic approach and may benefit from this approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic Review/Meta-analysis, Level III.