Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2012
Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: consensus conference guidelines.
Consensus StatementСтатьяКлинические рекомендацииНазвание 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.
Vettoretto N, Carrara A, Corradi A, De Vivo G, Lazzaro L, Ricciardelli L, Agresta F, Amodio C, Bergamini C, Borzellino G, Catani M, Cavaliere D, Cirocchi R, Gemini S, Mirabella A, Palasciano N, Piazza D, Piccoli M, Rigamonti M, Scatizzi M, Tamborrino E, Zago M, Italian Association of Hospital Surgeons (Associazione dei Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani-ACOI)
Аннотация
AIM: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis has been demonstrated to be technically feasible in small bowel obstruction and carries advantages in terms of post-surgical course. The increasing dissemination of laparoscopic surgery in the emergency setting and the lack of concrete evidence in the literature have called for a consensus conference to draw recommendations for clinical practice.
METHODS: A literature search was used to outline the evidence, and a consensus conference was held between experts in the field. A survey of international experts added expertise to the debate. A public jury of surgeons discussed and validated the statements, and the entire process was reviewed by three external experts.
RESULTS: Recommendations concern the diagnostic evaluation, the timing of the operation, the selection of patients, the induction of the pneumoperitoneum, the removal of the cause of obstructions, the criteria for conversion, the use of adhesion-preventing agents, the need for high-technology dissection instruments and behaviour in the case of misdiagnosed hernia or the need for bowel resection.
CONCLUSION: Evidence of this kind of surgery is scanty because of the absence of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless laparoscopic skills in emergency are widespread. The recommendations given with the consensus process might be a useful tool in the hands of surgeons.
METHODS: A literature search was used to outline the evidence, and a consensus conference was held between experts in the field. A survey of international experts added expertise to the debate. A public jury of surgeons discussed and validated the statements, and the entire process was reviewed by three external experts.
RESULTS: Recommendations concern the diagnostic evaluation, the timing of the operation, the selection of patients, the induction of the pneumoperitoneum, the removal of the cause of obstructions, the criteria for conversion, the use of adhesion-preventing agents, the need for high-technology dissection instruments and behaviour in the case of misdiagnosed hernia or the need for bowel resection.
CONCLUSION: Evidence of this kind of surgery is scanty because of the absence of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless laparoscopic skills in emergency are widespread. The recommendations given with the consensus process might be a useful tool in the hands of surgeons.