Literature DB >> 28728984

Operative versus non-operative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shahab Hajibandeh1, Shahin Hajibandeh2, Nilanjan Panda2, Rao Muhammad Asaf Khan2, Samik Kumar Bandyopadhyay2, Sanjay Dalmia2, Sohail Malik2, Zahirul Huq2, Moustafa Mansour2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate outcomes of operative and non-operative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO).
METHODS: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. We conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating outcomes of operative versus non-operative management of patients with adhesive SBO. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.
RESULTS: We found one RCT, two prospective and three retrospective observational studies, enrolling a total of 876 patients. The analyses showed that operative management of adhesive SBO was associated with a lower risk of future recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.76, P = 0.0005] but a higher risk of mortality [risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06, P = 0.01] and complications (OR 5.39, 95% CI 2.97-9.78, P < 0.00001). There was no difference in need for surgical re-intervention rate (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35-1.47, P = 0.36) and length of stay [mean difference (MD) 5.07, 95% CI -2.36-12.49, P = 1.0] between operative and non-operative managements. The baseline suspicion of strangulation was a major confounding factor. When the baseline suspicion of strangulation was higher in the operative group, the risk of mortality (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07, P = 0.0006) and complications (OR 8.14, 95% CI 4.16-15.94, P = 0.00001) were higher in the operative group but the risk of recurrence was lower (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.90, P = 0.01). When the baseline suspicion of strangulation was low in both groups, there was no difference in any of the outcomes except recurrence (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.37, P = 0.0009) which was lower in the operative group.
CONCLUSIONS: The difference in baseline suspicion of strangulation between operative and non-operative groups is a major confounding factor in current literature. The benefit of surgical treatment should be balanced with the risks associated with surgery, patient's co-morbidities, and presence or absence of strangulation. Based on the best available evidence it could be argued that surgical intervention could be preserved for cases with high suspicion or evidence of bowel strangulation. The controversy still remains for optimum length of conservative management and timing of surgery (early or late) for cases with low baseline suspicion of strangulation. Randomised controlled trials are required to compare outcomes of early operation (<24 h) versus late operation (>24 h) and early operation versus conservative management in patients with low suspicion of strangulation. Crown
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adhesiolysis; Adhesion; Conservative; Small bowel obstruction; Surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28728984     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Surg        ISSN: 1743-9159            Impact factor:   6.071


  8 in total

Review 1.  GI Surgical Emergencies: Scope and Burden of Disease.

Authors:  Matthew C Hernandez; Firas Madbak; Katherine Parikh; Marie Crandall
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Impact of Operative Management on Recurrence of Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Statewide Database.

Authors:  Andrew J Medvecz; Bradley M Dennis; Li Wang; Christopher J Lindsell; Oscar D Guillamondegui
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Decreasing recurrent bowel obstructions, improving quality of life with physiotherapy: Controlled study.

Authors:  Amanda D Rice; Kimberley Patterson; Evette D Reed; Belinda F Wurn; Kristen Robles; Bernhard Klingenberg; Leonard B Weinstock; Janey Sa Pratt; C Richard King; Lawrence J Wurn
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Only Surgical Treatment to Be Considered for Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: A New Paradigm.

Authors:  Nicolas Tabchouri; David Dussart; Urs Giger-Pabst; Nicolas Michot; Frederic Marques; Meriem Khalfallah; Petru Bucur; Louise Barbier; Aurore Kraemer-Bucur; Mihane Nayeri; Julien Thiery; Celine Bourbao-Tournois; Pascal Bourlier; Ephrem Salamé; Mehdi Ouaïssi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 2.260

5.  Can we detect fibrofatty band in patients with bowel obstruction on CT scan?

Authors:  Chunhei Li; Robert Pallas; Natasha Frewer; Julie Cornish; Rwth Ellis-Owen
Journal:  BJR Case Rep       Date:  2021-07-08

6.  Clinical efficacy of acupuncture in patients with adhesive intestinal obstruction: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yujia Xie; Chengwen Zheng; Xiyue Tan; Zongyu Li; Yiyi Zhang; Yuan Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-10-07       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Effect of hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane (Seprafilm) on outcomes of abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Shahin Hajibandeh; Shahab Hajibandeh; Samerah Saeed; Jonty Bird; LavaKrishna Kannappa; Indika Ratnayake
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2021-06-20

8.  Delayed bowel obstruction after seat belt injury: a case report.

Authors:  Xing-Bin Ma; Bao-Guang Hu; Wei Wang; Xian-Yong Cheng; Chun-Di Guan; Cheng-Xia Liu
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-08-08       Impact factor: 3.067

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.