No abstract

While the contemporary management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) often includes a trial of non-operative management (NOM), surgical dogma dictates urgent operative exploration in patients without previous abdominal surgery. This dogma has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting most obstructions in this population are adhesive in nature. The objectives of this review were to evaluate the feasibility of NOM in patients with SBO and no history of previous abdominal surgery, to examine the etiologies of SBO in this population, and to explore the rate of adverse events seen following NOM. Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to September 24, 2019. Articles reporting on NOM for SBO in patients without previous abdominal surgery and without clinical or radiographic features necessitating an emergent operation were included. Data were combined to obtain a pooled proportion of patients discharged without operation following a trial of NOM. 6 studies reporting on a total of 272 patients were included. The pooled proportion of patients discharged following NOM was 49.5% (95% CI 23.7-75.3%). Adhesions were found to be the predominant cause of obstruction. NOM did not appear to increase short-term complications. Most SBOs in patients without previous abdominal surgery are adhesive in nature and many patients can be discharged from hospital without surgery. While the short-term outcomes of NOM are acceptable, future studies are needed to address the long-term outcomes and safety of NOM as a treatment strategy for SBO in patients without previous abdominal surgery.

Background Although length of stay (LOS) after colorectal surgery (CRS) is associated with worse patient and system level outcomes, the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS has not been well investigated. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS. Methods A comprehensive database search was conducted using terms related to LOS and CRS. Studies were included if they reported the effect of surgeon or hospital factors on LOS after elective CRS. The evidence for the effect of each surgeon and hospital factor on LOS was synthesized using vote counting by direction of effect, taking risk of bias into consideration. Results A total of 13 946 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective and assessed a total of eight factors. Surgeon factors such as increasing surgeon volume, colorectal surgical specialty, and progression along a learning curve were significantly associated with decreased LOS (effect seen in 87.5 per cent, 100 per cent, and 93.3 per cent of studies respectively). In contrast, hospital factors such as hospital volume and teaching hospital status were not significantly associated with LOS. Conclusion Provider-related factors were found to be significantly associated with LOS after elective CRS. In particular, surgeon-related factors related to experience specifically impacted LOS, whereas hospital-related factors did not. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these relationships may allow for tailoring of interventions to reduce LOS.

No abstract