Multi-institutional, prospective, observational study comparing the Gastrografin challenge versus standard treatment in adhesive small bowel obstruction
Published in
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The, July 2017
Existing trials studying the use of Gastrografin for management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) are limited by methodological flaws and small sample sizes. We compared institutional protocols with and without Gastrografin (GG), hypothesizing that a SBO management protocol utilizing GG is associated with lesser rates of exploration, shorter length of stay, and fewer complications.
A multi-institutional, prospective, observational study was performed on patients appropriate for GG with adhesive SBO. Exclusion criteria were internal/external hernia, signs of strangulation, history of abdominal/pelvic malignancy, or exploration within the past 6 weeks. Patients receiving GG were compared to patients receiving standard care without GG.
Overall, 316 patients were included (58±18 years; 53% male). There were 173 (55%) patients in the GG group (of whom 118 [75%] successfully passed) and 143 patients in the non- GG group. There were no differences in duration of obstipation (1.6 vs 1.9 days, p=.77), or small bowel feces sign (32.9% vs 25.0%, p=.14). Fewer patients in the GG protocol cohort had mesenteric edema on CT (16.3% vs 29.9%; p= .009). There was a lower rate of bowel resection (6.9% vs 21.0%, p<.001) and exploration rate in the GG group (20.8% vs 44.1%, p<.0001). GG patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (4 IQR 2-7 vs 5 days IQR 2-12; p=.036) and a similar rate of complications (12.5% vs 17.9%; p=.20). Multivariable analysis revealed that GG was independently associated with successful non-operative management.
Patients receiving Gastrografin for adhesive SBO had lower rates of exploration and shorter hospital LOS compared to patients who did not receive GG. Adequately powered and well-designed randomized trials are required to confirm these findings and establish causality.
II.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2026.
All research outputs
#2,680,468
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#732
of 5,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,936
of 360,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#20
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
