The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2014
Should adhesive small bowel obstruction be managed laparoscopically? A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program propensity score analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lombardo Sarah, Baum Kerry, Filho Jorge DeAmorim, Nirula Ram
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Celiotomy is the most common approach for refractory small bowel obstruction (SBO). Small reviews suggest that a laparoscopic approach is associated with shorter stay and less morbidity. Given the limitations of previous studies, we sought to evaluate outcomes of laparoscopic (L) compared with open (O) adhesiolysis for SBO, using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set.
METHODS: Patients from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005 to 2009 database who underwent surgery for SBO were stratified based on surgical approach. A propensity score to undergo L instead of O was calculated based on demographics, comorbidities, physiology, and laboratory values. Logistic regression was then used to determine differences in outcomes between those propensity score-matched patients who actually underwent L compared with O surgery.
RESULTS: There were 6,762 patients who underwent adhesiolysis. The propensity score-matching process created 222 matched patients in L and O groups. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower rates of any complication (odds ratio [OR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.60), including superficial site infections (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.49), intraoperative transfusion (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.90), and shorter hospital stay (4 days vs. 10 days; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in operative time, rates of reoperation within 30 days, or mortality.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic treatment of SBO is associated with lower rates of postoperative morbidity compared with laparotomy as well as shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic treatment of surgical SBO is not associated with higher rates of early reoperation and seems to be associated with lower resource use.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.
METHODS: Patients from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005 to 2009 database who underwent surgery for SBO were stratified based on surgical approach. A propensity score to undergo L instead of O was calculated based on demographics, comorbidities, physiology, and laboratory values. Logistic regression was then used to determine differences in outcomes between those propensity score-matched patients who actually underwent L compared with O surgery.
RESULTS: There were 6,762 patients who underwent adhesiolysis. The propensity score-matching process created 222 matched patients in L and O groups. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower rates of any complication (odds ratio [OR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.60), including superficial site infections (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.49), intraoperative transfusion (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.90), and shorter hospital stay (4 days vs. 10 days; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in operative time, rates of reoperation within 30 days, or mortality.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic treatment of SBO is associated with lower rates of postoperative morbidity compared with laparotomy as well as shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic treatment of surgical SBO is not associated with higher rates of early reoperation and seems to be associated with lower resource use.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.