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

Quah, Gaik Si; Eslick, Guy D.; Cox, Michael R.

doi:10.1007/s00464-018-6604-3

Cited by 37 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it was not directed at patients with a strangulated SBO, a recent meta-analysis and large cohort study demonstrated superiority of laparoscopic surgery for patients with SBO. 9,13 Regarding the time from surgery to ingestion, the superiority of laparoscopic surgery originates from less irritation to the intestine, resulting in early recovery of bowel movements. 14 In other words, open surgery requires greater irritation to the intestines by directly handling them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, laparoscopic surgery has been considered feasible for adhesive SBO in selected patients . On the other hand, to our knowledge, the feasibility or disadvantage of laparoscopic surgery for strangulated SBO has not been investigated in detail.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…1 Recently, laparoscopic surgery has been considered feasible for adhesive SBO in selected patients. [5][6][7][8][9] On the other hand, to our knowledge, the feasibility or disadvantage of laparoscopic surgery for strangulated SBO has not been investigated in detail. We conducted a retrospective study comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery against strangulated SBO, and we investigated the feasibility and limitations of laparoscopic surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laparoscopic vs open surgery for patients with strangulated small bowel obstruction

Kohga¹,

Yajima²,

Okumura³

et al. 2019

Asian J Endoscop Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recent reports revealed that laparoscopic adhesiolysis is a feasible procedure for patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO). However, the feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for strangulated SBO has not been investigated in detail. Methods: Ninety-six patients who underwent surgery for strangulated SBO between April 2008 and September 2019 were included. Of these, 49 patients were intended to undergo laparoscopic surgery, while the other 47 underwent open surgery from the first. Comparisons were made between the patients who underwent laparoscopic and open surgery in the patients with intestinal resection and without resection, respectively. Results: In the resection group, eight patients (50.0%) who underwent laparoscopic surgery required conversion to open surgery. Perioperative outcomes were not statistically different between laparoscopic and open surgery except for postoperative use of continuous infusion of an analgesic agent or epidural anesthesia (P = .008). In the non-resection group, five patients (15.1%) who underwent laparoscopic surgery required conversion. Time from surgery to ingestion (P = .025) and postoperative use of continuous infusion of an analgesic agent or epidural anesthesia (P < .001) were significantly favorable in the laparoscopic group. In the patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, white blood cell count was >12 000/μL (P = .024, odds ratio = 7.569) and intestinal resection (P = .026, odds ratio = 5.19) were found by logistic regression analysis to be independent risk factors for conversion to open. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery yields superior outcomes in patients without a requirement of intestinal resection. Laparoscopic surgery was considered as a first-choice strategy in selected patients with strangulated SBO.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoscopic vs open surgery for patients with strangulated small bowel obstruction

Kohga¹,

Yajima²,

Okumura³

et al. 2019

Asian J Endoscop Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its feasibility and advantages, such as less postoperative pain and faster recovery, have already been well established in the majority of elective abdominal surgeries [1,2], and in limited emergent settings including appendicitis and cholecystitis [3,4]. Furthermore, in more major abdominal emergencies, such as perforated peptic ulcers and small bowel obstruction, the superiority of laparoscopic surgery has been reported several times in literature [5,6]. Although confirming the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in small bowel perforation due to an ingested FB is difficult because of limited clinical experience, some case report studies described the feasibility and advantages of laparoscopy in this condition [11,[14], [15], [16], [17], [18]].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, its feasibility and decreased invasiveness have been well established in most elective abdominal surgeries [1,2] and in some kinds of abdominal emergencies, such as appendicitis and cholecystitis [3,4]. Furthermore, it is gaining widespread acceptance in more major abdominal emergencies such as perforated peptic ulcers and small bowel obstruction [5,6]. We encountered two patients with small bowel perforation due to an ingested foreign body (FB)—a rare abdominal emergency—in whom laparoscopic surgery was successfully performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%