• Mini-invasiveMini-invasive treatment in children with small-bowel obstruction (review)

Mini-invasiveMini-invasive treatment in children with small-bowel obstruction (review)

PAEDIATRIC SURGERY.2017.1(54):97-103; doi 10.15574/PS.2017.54.97

Pereyaslov A. A., Nykyforuk O. M.
Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Ukraine

Introduction. Mechanical obstruction of the small bowel is a common problem for the adult and pediatic surgeons around the world. Small-bowel obstruction requiring more than 300,000 operation per year with the annual costs of $2.8 billion. In children, the acute small-bowel obstruction is a quite common cause of hospital admission, which required the urgent surgery. The development of small-bowel obstruction caused by the various reasons, but most frequently by the adhesions that accompanied all types of surgery. Laparotomy remains the main method of treatment children with the smallbowel obstruction. The applying of mini-invasive methods for the treatment of small-bowel obstruction is still controversial and do not widely accepted among surgeons.

The aim of the study was to generalize the causes of the adhesive processes and the experience of laparoscopic interventions in patients with small-bowel obstruction.

Material and methods. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline databases dealt with laparoscopic treatment of smallbowel obstruction. The next key words were used for the search: small-bowel obstruction, adhesive intestinal obstruction, children, laparoscopy and laparoscopic adhesiolysis. Some limitations were used for this search which are as follows: clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, multicenter retro- and prospective trials, and experts opinion; conference abstracts were excluded due to the limited data.

Discussion. Among various etiologic agents, e.g. intussusception, volvulus, incarcerated internal hernia, the adhesion process is the leading cause of the small-bowel obstruction. The adhesion formation is nearly inevitable consequence of surgery. Adhesive small-bowel obstruction can develop after any surgical interventions, but its frequency strongly depends on children’s age and type of initial operation. The incidence rate of small-bowel obstruction in newborns ranges from 2.3% to 19.5% (6.2% on average), while in children over one year of age – from 0.1% to 14% (4.7% on average). The difference in the incidence rate between neonates and infants / children may reflect the different pathologies and procedures, as well as physiological pecularities and repair processes. Laparotomy regarding as the standard surgical intervention is accompanied by the damage of visceral peritoneum that creates the susceptibility in 10% – 30% of patients for even more adhesions, and, as the consequence, the disease recurrence and the necessity of re-operations. Despite the above-mentioned, the open adhesiolysis continues to be the most often approach to treatment in adults and children. During the dawn of mini-invasive surgery, laparoscopy was considered an unsuitable approach to small-bowel obstruction due to the dilated loops that significantly reduced the visualization and increased the risk of its iatrogenic injury. Since the first succesful laparoscopic adhesiolysis (D.F. Bastug, 1991) was performed, it was gradually acceped by adult surgeons and later by pediatric surgeons. Based on the consensus conference guidelines (2012), the only absolute exclusion criteria for laparoscopic adhesiolysis are those related to true contraindications to pneumoperitoneum, such as hemodynamic instability or cardiopulmonary impairment. All other contraindications are relative and should be judged on a case-to-case basis, depending on the laparoscopic experience of the surgeon. The open Hasson technique or special optical trocar is strongly recommended for the induction of pneumoperitoneum and the first trocar entry. The applying of 10- or 5-mm equipments more suitable due to the lower risk of the intestine injury. The literature data about the operative time of the open and laparoscopic approaches have the inconsistent results – some of surgeons indicate the shorter operative time during the laparoscopy and others, on the contrary, report about the reduced mean operative time of the laparotomy vs laparoscopy, or that the duration of these interventions is similar. The incidence rate of convertion during laparoscopic adhesiolysis ranges from 7% to 73% that dependes on surgeon experience in laparoscopic surgery. The incidence rate of adhesive obstruction recurrence was less after laparoscopic approach compared with the conventional laparotomy. Besides the well-known advantages of laparoscopy (such as better cosmetic effect, reduction of postoperative pain, and shorter period of hospitalization), laparoscopic adhesiolysis associates with the lower probability of the recurrence of adhesive obstruction, shorter time of the renewal of the first bowel motility, and the less postoperative morbidity.

Conclusions. The postoperative adhesion is the most often etiology of the small-bowel obstruction in children, but the other etiology is not excluded. The laparoscopic adhesiolysis may be the alternative approach to the conventional laparotomy providing the appropriate skills in laparoscopy. The laparoscopic adhesiolysis is characterized by the lower rates of severe postoperative complications compared with the open approach.

Key words: small-bowel obstruction, children, laparotomy, laparoscopy.


1. Loftus T et al. 2015. A protocol for the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 78: 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000491.

2. Okabayashi K et al. 2014. Adhesions after abdominal surgery: a systematic review of the incidence, distribution and severity. Surg Today. 44: 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-013-0591-8.

3. Duron JJ et al. 2006. Adhesive postoperative small bowel obstruction: incidence and risk factors of recurrence after surgical treatment: a multicenter prospective study. Ann Surg. 24: 750–757. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000225097.60142.68.

4. Catena F et al. 2016. Adhesive small bowel adhesions obstruction: Evolutions in diagnosis, management and prevention. World J Gastrointest Surg. 8: 222–231. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v8.i3.222.

5. Arung W et al. 2011. Pathophysiology and prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. World J Gastroenterol. 17: 4545–4553. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i41.4545.

6. Becmeur F, Besson R 1998. Treatment of small–bowel obstruction by laparoscopy in children multicentric study. GECI. Groupe d’Etude en Coeliochirurgie Infantile. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 8: 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1071229.

7. ten Broek RP et al. 2013. Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis. BMJ. 347: f5588. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5588.

8. Yeung BP et al. 2012. Choledochal malformations: the Scottish experience. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 22: 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1308710.

9. Choudhry MS, Grant HW. 2006. Small bowel obstruction due to adhesions following neonatal laparotomy. Pediatr Surg Int. 22: 729–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-006-1719-3.

10. Okamoto H et al. 2012. Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic adhesiolysis for mechanical small bowel obstruction. Asian J Endosc Surg. 5: 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5910.2011.00117.x.

11. Goussous N et al. 2015. Early postoperative small bowel obstruction: open vs laparoscopic. Am J Surg. 209: 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.07.012.

12. Lakshminarayanan B et al. 2014. Epidemiology of adhesions in infants and children following open surgery. Semin Pediatr Surg. 23: 344–348. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.06.005.

13. Maung AA et al. 2012. Evaluation and management of small-bowel obstruction: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 73: 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31827019de.

14. Farinella E et al. 2009. Feasibility of laparoscopy for small bowel obstruction. World J Emerg Surg. 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-4-3.

15. Young JY et al. 2007. High incidence of postoperative bowel obstruction in newborns and infants. J Pediatr Surg. 42: 962–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.01.030.

16. Hackethal A et al. 2011. Intra-abdominal adhesion formation: Does surgical approach matter? Questionnaire survey of South Asian surgeons and literature review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 37: 1382–1390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01543.x.

17. Strickland P et al. 1999. Is laparoscopy safe and effective for treatment of acute smallbowel obstructions? Surg Endosc. 13: 695–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901075.

18. Vettoretto N et al. 2012. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: consensus conference guidelines. Colorectal Dis. 14: 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02968.x.

19. Ahmad G et al. 2012. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 15: CD006583. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub3.

20. Szomstein S et al. 2006. Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. World J Surg. 30: 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7778-0.

21. Lujan HJ et al. 2006. Laparoscopic management as the initial treatment of acute small bowel obstruction. JSLS. 10: 466–472. PMid:17575759 PMCid:PMC3015746.

22. Suter M et al. 2000. Laparoscopic management of mechanical small bowel obstruction: Are there predictors of success or failure? Surg Endosc. 14: 478–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000104.

23. Aguayo P et al. 2011. Laparoscopic management of small bowel obstruction in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 21: 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2010.0165.

24. Li MZ et al. 2012. Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 204: 779–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.03.005.

25. Byrne J et al. 2015. Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: a comparison of outcomes. Surg Endosc. 29: 2525–2532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4015-7.

26. Saleh F et al. 2014. Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of small bowel obstruction: an analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 28: 2381–2386. doi 10.1007/s00464- 014-3486-x.

27. Sauerland S et al. 2006. Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc. 20: 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0564-0.

28. Tierris I et al. 2011. Laparoscopy for acute small bowel obstruction: indication or contraindication? Surg Endosc. 25: 531–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1206-8.

29. Dindo D et al. 2010. Laparoscopy for small bowel obstruction: the reason for conversion matters. Surg Endosc. 24: 792–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0658-1.

30. Kelly KN et al. 2014. Laparotomy for small-bowel obstruction: first choice or last resort for adhesiolysis? A laparoscopic approach for small-bowel obstruction reduces 30-day complications. Surg Endosc. 28: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3162-6.

31. Jancelewicz T et al. 2010. Long-term surgical outcomes in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: observations from a single institution. J Pediatr Surg. 45: 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.10.028.

32. Grafen FC et al. 2010. Management of acute small bowel obstruction from intestinal adhesions: indications for laparoscopic surgery in a community teaching hospital. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 395: 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-009-0490-z.

33. Murphy FL, Sparnon AL. 2006. Long-term complications following intestinal malrotation and the Ladd’s procedure: a 15 year review. Pediatr Surg Int. 22: 326–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-006-1653-4.

34. O’Connor DB, Winter DC. 2012. The role of laparoscopy in the management of acute small-bowel obstruction: a review of over 2,000 cases. Surg Endosc. 26: 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1885-9.

35. Brokelman WJ et al. 2006. Peritoneal fibrinolytic response to various aspects of laparoscopic surgery: A randomized trial. J Surg Res. 136: 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.044.

36. Guttman J et al. 2015. Point-of-care ultrasonography for the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction in the emergency department. CJEM. 17: 206–209. https://doi.org/10.2310/8000.2014.141382.

37. Molinaro F et al. 2009. Postoperative intestinal obstruction after laparoscopic versus open surgery in the pediatric population: A 15–year review. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 19: 160-162. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1202858.

38. De Wilde RL et al. 2012. Prevention of adhesions in gynaecological surgery: The 2012 European field guideline. Gynecol Surg. 9: 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-012-0764-2.

39. Reissman P, Wexner SD. 1995. Laparoscopic surgery for intestinal obstruction. Surg Endosc. 9: 865–868. doi 10.1007/BF00768879.

40. Anderson SA et al. 2014. Role of laparoscopy in the prevention and in the treatment of adhesions. Semin Pediatr Surg. 23: 353–356. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.06.007.

41. Stanton M et al. 2010. Adhesional small bowel obstruction following anti-reflux surgery in children – Comparison of 232 laparoscopic and open fundoplications. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 20: 11–13. doi 10.1055/s-0029-1237382.

42. Lee J et al. 2012. Surgical management of pediatric adhesive bowel obstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 22: 917–920. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0069.

43. Liuming H et al. 2011. The effect of laparoscopic excision vs open excision in children with choledochal cyst: a midterm follow-up study. J Pediatr Surg. 46: 662–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.10.012.

44. Van Eijck FC et al. 2008. The incidence and morbidity of adhesions after treatment of neonates with gastroschisis and omphalocele: a 30-year review. J Pediatr Surg. 43: 479–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.10.027.

45. Pei KY et al. 2016, Sep 1. Will laparoscopic lysis of adhesions become the standard of care? Evaluating trends and outcomes in laparoscopic management of smallbowel obstruction using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database. Surg Endosc.Epub ahead of print. PMid:27585468.