Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-2 of 2
  • Sallinen, Ville; Di Saverio, Salomone; Haukijärvi, Eija; Juusela, Risto; Wikström, Heidi; Koivukangas, Vesa; Catena, Fausto; Enholm, Berndt; Birindelli, Arianna; Leppäniemi, Ari; Mentula, Panu (2019)
    Background Although laparoscopic adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstruction is being done more frequently, it is not widely accepted due to the lack of supporting evidence of its superiority over an open approach and concerns regarding its benefits. We aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic adhesiolysis was a superior treatment for adhesive small bowel obstruction compared with an open approach in terms of length of postoperative hospital stay and morbidity. Methods In this international, multicentre, parallel, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients (1: 1) aged 18-95 years who had adhesive small bowel obstruction that had not resolved with conservative management to have either open or laparoscopic adhesiolysis. The study was done in five academic university hospitals and three community (central) hospitals in two countries (Finland [n=3 academic university hospitals; n=3 community hospitals] and Italy [n=2 academic university hospitals]). We included only patients with high likelihood of a single adhesive band in the trial; additionally, patients who had an anaesthesiological contraindication, were pregnant, living in institutionalised care, or who had a hospital stay of more than 1 week before the surgical consultation were excluded from the trial. The randomisation sequence was generated using block randomisation, with randomly varied block sizes and stratified according to centre. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay assessed at time of discharge in the modified intention-to-treat population. Findings Between July 18, 2013, and April 9, 2018, 566 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 104 patients were randomly assigned to the open surgery group (n=51) or to the laparoscopy group (n=53). Of these patients, 100 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses (49 in the open surgery group; 51 in the laparoscopy group). The postoperative length of hospital stay for open surgery group was on average 1.3 days longer than that in the laparoscopy group (geometric mean 5.5 days [range 2-19] vs 4.2 days [range 1 -20]; ratio of geometric means 1.31 [95% CI 1.06-1.61]; p=0.013). 21 (43%) patients in the open surgery group and 16 (31%) patients in the laparoscopy group had postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo any grade) within 30 days (odds ratio 0.61 [95% CI 0.27-1.38]; p=0.23). One patient died in each group within 30 days. Interpretation Laparoscopic adhesiolysis provides quicker recovery in selected patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction than open adhesiolysis. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Hackenberg, T.; Mentula, P.; Leppaniemi, A.; Sallinen, V. (2017)
    Background and Aims: The laparoscopic approach has been increasingly used to treat adhesive small-bowel obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of a laparoscopic versus an open approach for adhesive small-bowel obstruction. Material and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected on patients who had surgery for adhesive small-bowel obstruction at a single academic center between January 2010 and December 2012. Patients with a contraindication for the laparoscopic approach were excluded. A propensity score was used to match patients in the laparoscopic and open surgery groups based on their preoperative parameters. Results: A total of 25 patients underwent laparoscopic adhesiolysis and 67 patients open adhesiolysis. The open adhesiolysis group had more suspected bowel strangulations and more previous abdominal surgeries than the laparoscopic adhesiolysis group. Severe complication rate (Clavien-Dindo 3 or higher) was 0% in the laparoscopic adhesiolysis group versus 14% in the open adhesiolysis group (p = 0.052). Twenty-five propensity score-matched patients from the open adhesiolysis group were similar to laparoscopic adhesiolysis group patients with regard to their preoperative parameters. Length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic adhesiolysis group compared to the propensity score-matched open adhesiolysis group (6.0 vs 10.0 days, p = 0.037), but no differences were found in severe complications between the laparoscopic adhesiolysis and propensity score-matched open adhesiolysis groups (0% vs 4%, p = 0.31). Conclusion: Patients selected to be operated by the open approach had higher preoperative morbidity than the ones selected for the laparoscopic approach. After matching for this disparity, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay without differences in complications. The laparoscopic approach may be a preferable approach in selected patients.