ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether surgical outcomes differ between laparoscopic vs open approach for adhesiolysis in patients presenting with adhesional small bowel obstruction (ASBO). DATA SOURCE: A systematic review of literature on published studies reporting the surgical outcomes after laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis for ASBO was undertaken using the principles of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen comparative studies on 38,057 patients, evaluating the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis for ASBO were analyzed. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis resulted in the reduced risk of morbidity (P < .00001), mortality (P < .0001), and surgical infections (P = .003). In addition, the risk of respiratory complications, cardiac complications, bowel resection, and venous thromboembolism was lower with shorter hospitalization in laparoscopic adhesiolysis group. However, statistical equivalence was seen in variables of duration of operation and iatrogenic enterotomies. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for ASBO seems to have clinically proven advantage over open approach.
Subject(s)
Intestinal Obstruction/surgery , Intestine, Small/surgery , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Laparotomy/adverse effects , Tissue Adhesions/surgery , Aged , Cause of Death , Female , Humans , Intestinal Obstruction/etiology , Laparoscopy/methods , Laparotomy/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Survival Analysis , Tissue Adhesions/complications , Treatment Outcome , United KingdomABSTRACT
AIM: To critically appraise the published randomized, controlled trials on the prophylactic effectiveness of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from inception of the databases until May 2015) was conducted to identify randomized, clinical trials investigating the role of NSAIDs in reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Random effects model of the meta-analysis was carried out, and results were presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95%CI. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials on 3378 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 1718 patients in the NSAIDs group and 1660 patients in non-NSAIDs group undergoing ERCP. The use of NSAIDs (through rectal route or intramuscular route) was associated with the reduced risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis [OR, 0.52 (0.38-0.72), P = 0.0001]. The use of pre-procedure NSAIDs was effective in reducing approximately 48% incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, number needed to treat were 16 with absolute risk reduction of 0.05. But the risk of post-ERCP pancreattis was reduced by 55% if NSAIDs were administered after procedure. Similarly, diclofenac was more effective (55%) prophylactic agent compared to indomethacin (41%). CONCLUSION: NSAIDs seem to have clinically proven advantage of reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.