Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether surgical outcomes differ between laparoscopy versus the open approach for adhesive small bowel obstruction.

METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched from 1985 to 2010. The study pooled the effects of outcomes of a total of 334 patients enrolled into 4 retrospective comparative studies using meta-analytic methods.

RESULTS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis was associated with a reduced overall complication rate (odds ratio = .42, .25-.70, P < .01), prolonged ileus rate (odds ratio = .28, .10-.73, P = .01) and pulmonary complication rate (odds ratio = .20, .04-.94, P = .04) compared with the open approach. No significant differences were noted for intraoperative injury to bowel rates (odds ratio = 1.93, .76-4.89, P = .17), wound infection rates (odds ratio = .44, .17-1.12, P = .08), and mortality (odds ratio = .81, .12-5.49, P = .83).

CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is advantageous in most of the analyzed outcomes. Laparoscopic treatment of small bowel obstruction is recommended by experienced laparoscopic surgeons in selected patients.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app