Lucas W Thornblade1, Anjali R Truitt2, Giana H Davidson2, David R Flum2, Danielle C Lavallee2. 1. Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: lucaswt@uw.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historical training instructs surgeons to, "never let the sun set on a small bowel obstruction (SBO)" due to concern for bowel ischemia. However, the routine use of computed tomography scans for ruling out ischemia provides the opportunity for trial of nonoperative management, allowing time for resolution of adhesive SBO. In light of advances in practice, little is known about how surgeons manage these patients, in particular, whether there is consistency in the stated duration for safe nonoperative management. METHODS: Using a case vignette (a patient with computed tomography scan diagnosed complete SBO without bowel ischemia), we interviewed a purposive sample of general surgeons practicing in Washington State to understand stated approaches to clinical management. Interview questions addressed typical practice, preferred timing of surgery, and approach. We conducted a content analysis to understand current practice and attitudes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 surgeons practicing across Washington State. Surgical practice patterns for patients with SBO varied widely. The period of time that surgeons were willing to manage patients nonoperatively ranged from 1-7 d. Interviews revealed insight into surgical decision-making, the importance of patient preferences, variation in practice, and evidence gaps. All surgeons acknowledged a lack of evidence to support appropriate management of patients with SBO. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with practicing surgeons highlight a changing paradigm away from routine early surgery for patients with adhesive SBO. However, there is lack of consensus in the appropriate duration of nonoperative management and practices vary considerably. These revealed attitudes inform the feasibility and design of future randomized studies of patients with adhesive SBO.
BACKGROUND: Historical training instructs surgeons to, "never let the sun set on a small bowel obstruction (SBO)" due to concern for bowel ischemia. However, the routine use of computed tomography scans for ruling out ischemia provides the opportunity for trial of nonoperative management, allowing time for resolution of adhesive SBO. In light of advances in practice, little is known about how surgeons manage these patients, in particular, whether there is consistency in the stated duration for safe nonoperative management. METHODS: Using a case vignette (a patient with computed tomography scan diagnosed complete SBO without bowel ischemia), we interviewed a purposive sample of general surgeons practicing in Washington State to understand stated approaches to clinical management. Interview questions addressed typical practice, preferred timing of surgery, and approach. We conducted a content analysis to understand current practice and attitudes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 surgeons practicing across Washington State. Surgical practice patterns for patients with SBO varied widely. The period of time that surgeons were willing to manage patients nonoperatively ranged from 1-7 d. Interviews revealed insight into surgical decision-making, the importance of patient preferences, variation in practice, and evidence gaps. All surgeons acknowledged a lack of evidence to support appropriate management of patients with SBO. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with practicing surgeons highlight a changing paradigm away from routine early surgery for patients with adhesive SBO. However, there is lack of consensus in the appropriate duration of nonoperative management and practices vary considerably. These revealed attitudes inform the feasibility and design of future randomized studies of patients with adhesive SBO.
Authors: Joel Bauer; Brieze Keeley; Beth Krieger; Juan Deliz; Kojo Wallace; Danielle Kruse; Kai Dallas; Joseph Bornstein; David Chessin; Stephen Gorfine Journal: Am Surg Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: David R Flum; Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho; Emily B Devine; Allison Devlin; Ellen Farrokhi; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Larry Kessler; Danielle Lavallee; Donald L Patrick; John L Gore; Sean D Sullivan Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Lucas W Thornblade; Francys C Verdial; Matthew A Bartek; David R Flum; Giana H Davidson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.452
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
Authors: M J Lee; A E Sayers; T M Drake; P J Marriott; I D Anderson; S P Bach; M Bradburn; D Hind; A Verjee; N S Fearnhead Journal: BJS Open Date: 2019-02-22
Authors: Josianne C H B M Luijten; Linda Brom; Pauline A J Vissers; Yes A J van de Wouw; Fabienne A R M Warmerdam; Joos Heisterkamp; Stella Mook; Jamal Oulad Hadj; Marc J van Det; Liesbeth Timmermans; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Camiel Rosman; Peter D Siersema; Marjan J Westerman; Rob H A Verhoeven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: P A J Vissers; R H A Verhoeven; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; M J Westerman; J C H B M Luijten; L Brom; M de Bièvre; J Buijsen; T Rozema; N Haj Mohammad; P van Duijvendijk; E A Kouwenhoven; W J Eshuis; C Rosman; P D Siersema; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 2.908