'Let's just wait one more day': impact of timing on surgical outcome in the treatment of adhesion-related small bowel obstruction.

Controversy exists but most surgeons agree that surgical treatment for failed conservative management of adhesion-related small bowel obstruction (SBO) should be within 48 hours. However, many find themselves delaying definitive treatment in the hopes of resolution. Our aim was to determine what impact timing has on surgical outcomes of SBO. A retrospective review of all consecutive patients surgically treated for adhesion-related SBO was performed from January 2001 to August 2006. Study groups included patients treated emergently (less than 6 hours), expeditiously (6 to 48 hours), and delayed (greater than 48 hours). Laparoscopic, open, and converted treatment types were controlled for as confounding variables using analysis of variance. Outcome measures were return of bowel function after surgery (RBF), length of stay after surgery (LOS), and morbidity. There were 27 emergencies, 30 treated expeditiously, and 34 delayed. Groups were matched in age and gender. RBF after surgery was significantly longer for those delayed in treatment compared with those treated expeditiously (greater than 48 hours = 7.4 days vs less than 6 hours = 7.6 and 6 to 48 hours = 5.4; P < .05) as well as LOS after surgery (greater than 48 hours = 12.3 days vs less than 6 hours = 10.1 and 6 to 48 hours = 7.6; P < 0.05). Patients treated with laparoscopy within 6 to 48 hours had a significantly shorter RBF and LOS than any other combination of timing and treatment. Postoperative morbidity was higher in the delayed group (79%) than the other groups (44% emergent and 40% expeditious) (P < 0.05). There was one death in the delayed group. Delaying surgical treatment beyond 48 hours for SBO is common and results in worse outcomes and longer LOS. Laparoscopic treatment within 48 hours is superior to open treatment.

Patient perception of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is gradually being adopted into general surgical practice. The potential risks and benefits are still being studied, and little is known about how patients perceive this new surgical technique. METHODS: After providing patients with basic educational materials on laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and SILC, we administered a questionnaire exploring patients' perspectives of the importance of postoperative pain, scar appearance, risk of complications, and cost regarding their preference for SILC versus LC. RESULTS: Among 100 patients (mean age, 43.3 years), the majority were women (85%), white (85%), college educated (77%), and privately insured (85%). Indications included biliary dyskinesia (43%), biliary colic (48%), and acute cholecystitis (9%). Patients stated that they would be somewhat or very interested in SILC if recommended by their surgeon (89%), although 35% were somewhat or very concerned about the lack of long-term results. The majority would accept no additional risk to undergo SILC. Scar appearance was somewhat or very important to <40% of patients, whereas pain was somewhat or very important to 79%. Only 27% of patients would spend >$100 to undergo SILC. When asked to rank pain, appearance, symptom resolution, personal cost, and risk of complications, 52% ranked symptom resolution, 20% ranked pain, and 19% ranked risk of complications as most important. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and relief of symptoms are most important to patients with gallbladder disease, whereas postprocedural esthetics was relatively unimportant and few would be willing to pay more for SILC versus LC. However, if the surgeon recommends SILC, most patients would trust this recommendation.