According to their self-reports, 60% of the respondents used LLA in their practice, with 38% of this group using LLA for less than 15% of their adhesive Crizotinib cost SBO cases. Compared with surgeons out of training more than 15 years, a greater number of surgeons out of training less than 15 years considered LLA to be safer (P = 0.03) and to have better outcomes (P = 0.04) than OLA. More surgeons in academic/teaching hospitals considered LLA to be safe than did surgeons in nonacademic/nonteaching
settings (P = 0.04), and more members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons/ Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, considered LLA to be safe than nonmembers (P = 0.001). These data suggest SB273005 in vitro that recent training and interest or membership in minimally
invasive surgery associations influence surgeons’ choice for laparoscopic lysis of adhesions . Laparoscopy seems to have an advantage above laparotomy in terms of adhesion formation to the abdominal wall and to the operative site [49, 50], both because of no further scar on anterior parietal peritoneum and because usually the exploration of the ileum is limited to solve the cause of obstruction, extending the dissection until the ligament of Treitz only when the cause of LOXO-101 supplier obstruction is not be detected . Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction has a number of potential advantages: (1) less postoperative pain, (2) faster return of intestinal function, (3) shorter hospital stay, (4) reduced recovery time, allowing an earlier return to full activity, (5) decreased
wound complications, and (6) decreased postoperative adhesion formation [52, 53]. These data have been validated in a meta-analysis in which Ming-Zhe Li et al. found that there was no statistically significant difference between open versus laparoscopic adhesiolysis Decitabine in the number of intraoperative bowel injuries, nor for wound infections, neither with respect to the overall mortality. Conversely there was a statistically significant difference concerning pulmonary complications and a considerable reduction in prolonged ileus in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group. The authors sustain that laparoscopic approach is safer than the open procedure, but in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons in selected patients . Besides Stephanian et al. observed that minimal trauma, short duration of the operation, good cosmetic results and uncomplicated course of postoperative period witness the efficacy of laparoscopic approach .