Laparoscopic versus open surgery for adhesional small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) due to adhesions is a common acute surgical presentation. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is being performed more frequently. However, the clear benefits of laparoscopic adhesiolysis (LA) compared with traditional open adhesiolysis (OA) remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for SBO due to adhesions. METHODS: A systemic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case-controlled studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for SBO. Data were extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed. RESULTS: There were no RCT. Data from 18 CCS on 38,927 patients (LA = 5,729 and OA = 33,389) were analysed. A meta-analysis showed that LA for SBO has decreased overall mortality (LA = 1.6% vs. OA = 4.9%, p < 0.001) and morbidity (LA = 11.2% vs. OA = 30.9%, p < 0.001). Similarly, the incidences of specific complications are significantly lower in the LA group. There are significantly lower reoperation rate (LA = 4.5% vs. OA = 6.5%, p = 0.017), shorter average operating time (LA = 89 min vs. OA = 104 min, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (LOS) (LA = 6.7 days vs. OA = 11.6 days, p < 0.001) in the LA group. In the CCS, there is likely to be a selection bias favouring less complex adhesions in the LA group that may contribute to the better outcomes in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a probable selection bias, these results suggest that LA for SBO in selected patients has a reduced mortality, morbidity, reoperation rate, average operating time and LOS compared with OA. LA should be considered in appropriately selected patients with acute SBO due to adhesions.