Comparison of outcomes following laparoscopic and open treatment of emergent small bowel obstruction: an 11-year analysis of ACS NSQIP

Richa Patel, Neil P. Borad, Aziz M. Merchant

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) continues to be a common indication for acute care surgery. While open procedures are still widely used for treatment, laparoscopic procedures may have important advantages in certain patient populations. We aim to analyze differences in outcomes between the two for treatment of bowel obstruction. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was used to find patients that underwent emergent or non-elective surgery for SBO. Propensity matching was used to create comparable groups. Logistic regression was used to assess differences in the primary outcome of interest, return to operating room, and morbidity and mortality outcomes. Logistic regression was also used to assess the contribution of various preoperative demographic and comorbidity characteristics to 30-day mortality. A total of 24,028 patients underwent surgery for SBO from 2005 to 2011. Of those, 3391 were laparoscopic. Propensity matching resulted in 6782 matched patients. Laparoscopic cases had significantly decreased odds of experiencing any morbidity and wound complications compared to open cases in bowel-resection and adhesiolysis-only cases. There was no significant difference found for odds of returning to operating room. Laparoscopic cases resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays than open cases (7.18 vs.10.84 days, p < 0.0001). Increasing age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class greater than three, and the presence of respiratory comorbidities resulted in increased odds of mortality. Underweight body mass index (BMI) (< 18.5) increased odds of mortality while greater than normal BMI (> 25) decreased odds of mortality. Analysis of emergent SBO cases between 2005 and 2015 demonstrates that laparoscopy is not utilized as often as open approaches in surgical treatment. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in reduced postoperative morbidity and significantly shorter hospital stays compared to open intervention and was not associated with significant differences in odds of reoperation compared to open surgery.