Search

Introduction: Exploratory laparotomy is still the standard therapy for patients who need surgical intervention for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO). However, the use of laparoscopy in the management of adhesive SBO is still controversial. We aimed to detect the short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic adhesiolysis for SBO. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with adhesive SBO who underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery from June 2019 to July 2022 at Ain Shams University Hospitals. Intraoperative and early post-operative outcomes were compared in the two groups. Results: A total of 89 patients with adhesive SBO were included in our study. Fifty-one cases underwent open adhesiolysis and 38 cases underwent laparoscopic adhesiolysis. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is associated with a remarkable decrease in the operative time (71 min vs. 107 min, P = 0.001) and blood loss (50 ml vs. 120 ml, P = 0.001) in comparison to open adhesiolysis. In addition to that, those who underwent adhesiolysis by laparoscopy had a short hospital stay (2.4 days vs. 3.8 days, P = 0.001), early recovery (time to pass flatus 1.3 days vs. 2.8 days) and less post-operative complications (surgical site infection [SSI] 2.6% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.001). Moreover, open adhesiolysis is associated with a higher rate of early post-operative mortality. In addition to that, the incidence of iatrogenic injury was higher in the open group. Conclusion: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is a safe and feasible approach for the management of SBO and has better short-term outcomes, especially if done by skilled surgeons in advanced laparoscopic techniques.

Background and Aim: In the era of minimally invasive procedures and as a way to decrease the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), the use of staplers for distal pancreatectomy (DP) has increased dramatically. Our aim was to investigate whether reinforced staplers decrease the incidence of clinically relevant PF after DP compared with staplers without reinforcement. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to 1 November 2021, and a systematic review and a meta-analysis were done to detect the outcomes after using reinforced staplers versus standard stapler for DP. Results: Seven studies with a total of 681 patients were included. The overall incidence of POPF and the incidence of Grade A POPF after DP are similar for the two groups (overall POPF, risk ratio [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71–1.01, P = 0.06; I2 = 38% and Grade A POPF, RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.78–1.69, P = 0.47; I2 = 49%). However, the incidence of clinically significant POPF (Grades B and C) is significantly lower in DP with reinforced staplers than DP with bare staplers (Grades B and C, RR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.29–0.71, P = 0.0005; I2 = 17%). Nevertheless, the time of the operation, the blood loss during surgical procedure, the hospital stay after the surgery and the thickness of the pancreas are similar for both techniques. Conclusion: Although staple line reinforcement after DP failed to prevent biochemical PF, it significantly reduced the rate of clinically relevant POPF in comparison to standard stapling.