Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 5/2007

01-05-2007

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for acute adhesive small-bowel obstruction: patients’ outcome and cost-effectiveness

Authors: M. Khaikin, N. Schneidereit, S. Cera, D. Sands, J. Efron, E. G. Weiss, J. J. Nogueras, A. M. Vernava 3rd, S. D. Wexner

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 5/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Numerous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of laparoscopy in the management of acute adhesive small-bowel obstruction (AASBO). However, comparative data with laparotomy are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopy and laparotomy for the treatment of AASBO in terms of patient outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent surgery for AASBO from 1999 to 2005 was conducted. Data recorded included operative and postoperative course, among others. Operative and total hospital charges were estimated from the Patient Accounting System.

Results

Thirty-one patients who underwent laparoscopy were matched to a similar group of patients who underwent laparotomy. In the laparoscopy group, four patients (13%) had a laparoscopy-assisted procedure and ten patients (32%) were converted. The laparoscopy group was subdivided into laparoscopy, laparoscopy-assisted, converted, and assisted-converted subgroups. In the majority of the patients, AASBO was secondary to a single band. Overall morbidity was significantly higher in the laparotomy group (p = 0.007). Morbidity rates were statistically significant between the laparoscopy and assisted-converted subgroups (p = 0.0001) but not between the laparotomy group and assisted-converted subgroup (p = 0.19). Median hospital stay and median time to first bowel movement were significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group. Charge data were available for only the last three years of the study. Operative charges and total hospital charges were similar between the laparoscopy and the laparotomy groups (p = 0.14 and p = 0.10, respectively). There was a significant difference in total hospital charges between the laparoscopy subgroup and laparotomy group (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Laparoscopy for AASBO is associated with reduced hospital stay, early recovery, and decreased morbidity. Laparoscopy-assisted and converted surgeries do not differ significantly from laparotomy in regard to patient outcome. Operative and total hospital charges are similar for both laparoscopy and laparotomy.
Literature
1.
Borzellino G, Tasselli S, Zerman G, Pedrazzani C, Manzoni G (2004) Laparoscopic approach to postoperative adhesive obstruction. Surg Endosc 18(4): 686–690PubMedCrossRef
2.
Chopra R, McVay C, Phillips E, Khalili TM (2003) Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. Am Surg 69(11): 966–968PubMed
3.
Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2003) Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 197(2): 177–181PubMedCrossRef
4.
Garrard CL, Clements RH, Nanney L, Davidson JM, Richards WO (1999) Adhesion formation is reduced after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13(1): 10–13PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kirshtein B, Roy-Shapira A, Lantsberg L, Avinoach E, Mizrahi S (2005) Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction. Surg Endosc 19(4): 464–467PubMedCrossRef
6.
Kossi J, Salminen P, Rantala A, Laato M (2003) Population-based study of the surgical workload and economic impact of bowel obstruction caused by postoperative adhesions. Br J Surg 90(11): 1441–1444PubMedCrossRef
7.
Levard H, Boudet MJ, Msika S, Molkhou JM, Hay JM, Laborde Y, Gillet M, Fingerhut A (2001) French Association for Surgical Research. Laparoscopic treatment of acute small bowel obstruction: a multicentre retrospective study. ANZ J Surg 71(11): 641–646PubMedCrossRef
8.
Liberman MA, Phillips EH, Carroll BJ, Fallas M, Rosenthal R (1996) Laparoscopic colectomy vs traditional colectomy for diverticulitis. Outcome and costs. Surg Endosc 10(1): 15–18PubMedCrossRef
9.
Miller G, Boman J, Shrier I, Gordon PH (2000) Etiology of small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 180(1): 33–36PubMedCrossRef
10.
Miller G, Boman J, Shrier I, Gordon PH (2000) Natural history of patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 87(9): 1240–1247PubMedCrossRef
11.
Nagle A, Ujiki M, Denham W, Murayama K (2004) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 187(4): 464–470PubMedCrossRef
12.
Philipson BM, Bokey EL, Moore JW, Chapuis PH, Bagge E (1997) Cost of open versus laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy for cancer. World J Surg 21(2): 214–217PubMedCrossRef
13.
Senagore AJ, Duepree HJ, Delaney CP, Dissanaike S, Brady KM, Fazio VW (2002) Cost structure of laparoscopic and open sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: similarities and differences. Dis Colon Rectum 45(4): 485–490PubMedCrossRef
14.
Strickland P, Lourie DJ, Suddleson EA, Blitz JB, Stain SC (1999) Is laparoscopy safe and effective for treatment of acute small-bowel obstruction? Surg Endosc 13(7): 695–698PubMedCrossRef
15.
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): 478–483PubMedCrossRef
16.
Williams SB, Greenspon J, Young HA, Orkin BA (2005) Small bowel obstruction: conservative vs. surgical management. Dis Colon Rectum 48(6): 1140–1146PubMedCrossRef
17.
Wullstein C, Gross E (2003) Laparoscopic compared with conventional treatment of acute adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 90(9): 1147–1151PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for acute adhesive small-bowel obstruction: patients’ outcome and cost-effectiveness
Authors
M. Khaikin
N. Schneidereit
S. Cera
D. Sands
J. Efron
E. G. Weiss
J. J. Nogueras
A. M. Vernava 3rd
S. D. Wexner
Publication date
01-05-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 5/2007
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9212-1

Other articles of this Issue 5/2007

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2007 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Robotically assisted biliary pancreatic diversion with a duodenal switch: a new technique

Letter to the editor--reply

Adverse effects of porcine small intestine submucosa implants in experimental ventral hernia repair

OriginalPaper

Establishing a laparoscopic bariatric program in a safety net hospital

Editorial

Endoluminal GERD therapy: inside, outside, upside, downside

OriginalPaper

Appendicitis in the elderly: a change in the laparoscopic era

OriginalPaper

Complications after a 5-year experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the Indiana University Experience