Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Small Bowel Obstruction CPS 2012
Small Bowel Obstruction CPS 2012
recent year, 948,000 hospital days of care were required for treatment of
SBO.6 The same study suggests that Medicare alone is paying $3.2
billion per year for treatment of SBO, and currently there are 117
hospitalizations per 100,000 people for treatment of bowel obstruction. 6
In several countries in Europe, the medical costs for SBO were greater
than the costs for gastric cancer and almost as much as for colon
cancer.7,8 Although initial studies suggested that the increased role of
minimally invasive surgery did not appear to have significantly reduced
the incidence of adhesive SBO, more recent studies suggests that SBO
incidence is lower in patients who undergo a minimally invasive
procedure. Clearly, given the magnitude of this problem, finding a
prevention for or cure of this costly and frustrating complication should
be a priority for American medicine.
Etiology of SBO
Any discussion of SBO mandates a discussion of adhesions and the
role they play in the disease. Although adhesions rarely lead to
obstruction of the large bowel, they account for more than 70% of all
SBOs.2 A review of the literature regarding the etiology of SBO confirms
that in the United States, adhesions constitute the major source of SBO
by a large mar gin9-12 (Table 2). Other causes of SBO include hernia
(most common cause of SBO in undeveloped countries), cancer,
inflammatory bowel
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 643
TABLE 3. Lexicon of small bowel obstruction
Less serious More serious
Partial Complete
Low grade High grade
Simple Closed loop
Low High
Ileus Mechanical
Chronic Acute
Intrinsic Extrinsic
FIG 4. Generalized peritoneal inflammatory response associated with injury. Note the rise and
time course for fibrin and mesothelial cells. (Reprinted with kind permission of Springer Science
Business Media from DiZerega GS, ed. Peritoneal Surgery. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000.)
and the injury may include exposure to intestinal contents. The healing
attempt begins with the formation, through coagulation, of a fibrin rich
exudate through which mesothelial cells can migrate and accom plish
reepithelialization.
648 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
FIG 5. Biochemical events associated with peritoneal injury and possible adhesion formation.
tPA, tissue plasminogen activator; PAI, plasminogen activator inhibitor; uPA, urokinase
plasminogen activator. (Reprinted with permission from Attard and MacLean. 13)
There is sound logic behind the use of such agents, although their
effective ness has been somewhat limited. Reports in the literature
describe the effective use of a large number of pharmacological agents in
experimental animal studies.25 However, few agents progress to clinical
trials.
Several compounds in the laboratory have been noted to decrease adhe
sions by interfering with fibrin deposition: nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), heparin, and corticosteroids. NSAID
action targets prosta glandin synthesis, decreasing the inflammatory
response from the start.26 Heparin acts directly on the coagulation
cascade by inhibiting the internal pathway of the coagulation cascade by
acting on factor Xa and thrombin via antithrombin. Corticosteroids may
also have potential to inhibit adhesion formation via immune modulation,
but studies have not been able to demonstrate this convincingly. 27 Drugs
that alter the inflammatory response following operation have been most
studied. The drugs include steroids and the NSAIDs. The balance
between adhesion reduction and acceptable systemic side effects, such as
bleeding and impaired wound healing has been difficult to overcome for
these agents. Therapeutic anticoagulation to prevent fibrin deposition or
the use of streptokinase to promote fibrinolysis has not had a significant
effect on adhesion reduction in animal studies, and again there is the
concern for the risk of postoperative bleeding. The results from studies
using streptokinase and urokinase have been equivocal or even harmful
in some studies.13
For a thorough review of the status of pharmacological strategies for
adhesion prevention, we recommend recent articles by Attard and
Maclean13; and Lauder and colleagues.,25 Obviously, a pharmacologic
agent that would reduce inflammation and optimize fibrinolysis postop
eratively without causing bleeding or impairing wound healing would be
an ideal candidate for adhesion prevention.18
Laparoscopic vs. Open Surgery and Adhesions
Surgeons who perform laparoscopic surgery appreciate and recognize
that adhesion formation is less after laparoscopic procedures, such as
cholecystectomy and hernia repair, than after the same procedures
performed
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 651
as open operations. This is believed to be so because there is less damage
to the peritoneum— both parietal and visceral—and less handling of the
tissue with laparoscopy. Gutt and colleagues, general surgeons, wrote
about this in 2004.28 They reviewed the published literature on this topic
and found 15 reports to evaluate from 1987 to 2001: 3 clinical and 12
experimental. In the 3 clinical studies, adhesions following laparoscopy
were less than after open surgery in comparable groups of patients.
Lundorff and colleagues evaluated adhesions at the operative site after
open and laparoscopic operation for ectopic tubal pregnancy in 73
women.29 The authors found significantly fewer adhesions at the
operative site in the laparoscopic group. Milingos and colleagues found
similar results in patients who had surgical adhesiolysis for infertility. 30
A third study compared adhesion formation between the liver bed, the
omentum, and the duodenum after open or laparoscopic
cholecystectomy.31 After open cholecystectomy, all patients (100%) had
thick extensive adhesions to the operative site vs. 44% of patients after
laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and these adhesions were loose and easy
to separate. In this analysis of the data, the authors concluded that
laparoscopic surgery is associated with a reduction in the formation of
adhesions after abdominal operations in all clinical and most
experimental studies.
An update of the current role of the topical gels and the membrane
barriers for the surgeon to use in the operating room will not be given
here; it is the subject of the last section in this monograph.
Intestinal Gas
Normally, most of the gas in the gut and that seen on plain abdominal
radiographs consists of swallowed air; the remainder can be attributed to
carbon dioxide from the neutralization of bicarbonate in the duodenum,
and organic gases such as methane and hydrogen sulfide from bacterial
metabolism. The intestine rapidly absorbs carbon dioxide, which is then
released from the body through the lungs. Nitrogen and the organic gases
are not absorbed by the intestine and comprise most of the gas normally
expelled from the rectum as flatus. 33 With mechanical intestinal obstruc
tion, gaseous distention of the intestine occurs because the gas has no
route of escape. Because obstructed patients usually continue to swallow
air in varying quantity, they experience progressive accumulation of
intestinal gas consisting mostly of nitrogen. 33-35 This is one reason for
placing an NG tube.
A particularly serious form of bowel obstruction is the closed loop
obstruction in which a segment of bowel is obstructed proximally and
distally as with a twist or volvulus of the bowel around or by an adhesion
that traverses and compresses the bowel in 2 places. In such cases, the
accumulating gas and fluid cannot escape either upstream or downstream
from the blocked segment, and luminal pressure will quickly increase
and lead to decreased bowel wall perfusion and bowel ischemia.
Intestinal Fluid
In addition to ingested food and drink, up to 5 to 10 L of salivary,
gastric, pancreatic, biliary, and intestinal secretions enter the digestive
tract each day. Normally, most of the fluid is reabsorbed by the small
intestine, as only approximately 1 L of fluid enters the colon from the
ileum daily.33
In mechanical obstruction, the intestine proximal to the site of obstruc
tion fills with fluid and gas. This fluid is not absorbed as in the normal
intestine, and the distended bowel over time begins to secrete fluid rather
than absorb fluid and contributes to a state of intravascular dehydration
or hypovolemia. Loss of fluid and electrolytes from the intravascular
space occurs by several routes as the intestine distends; this is a critical
event in bowel obstruction for several reasons.
First, intestinal distention may stimulate reflex vomiting leading to the
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 653
Clinical Presentation
The clinical presentation of patients with SBO may vary widely from
subtle nonspecific pain to florid peritoneal signs related to strangula tion
and bowel perforation. However, classic symptoms of bowel obstruction
include nausea and vomiting, a distended abdomen, colicky abdominal
pain, and alteration in flatus and stool passage. The symptoms vary
widely with the degree of bowel obstruction from a low-grade partial
SBO associated with a scaphoid abdomen and crampy pain with eating to
a complete bowel obstruction characterized by massive abdominal
distension, constant abdominal pain, and obstipation for longer than 24
hours. The clinical features of SBO are a function of the level of
obstruction, degree of lumen obstruction, duration of the obstruction, and
the amount of distension. Physical
656 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
examination classically reveals abdominal distension, high-pitched
bowel sounds, and diffuse tenderness to palpation, all of which suggest a
diagnosis of bowel obstruction.
Differential Diagnosis
Obstruction vs. Ileus. Making the distinction between an SBO and an
ileus depends primarily on the patient history, the clinical setting, the
physical examination, the findings on the radiological studies, and a
consideration of the likely causes. Surgeons are usually able to correctly
distinguish patients with SBO from those patients with an ileus. In the
past, even for experienced surgeons, these two diagnoses were often
difficult to separate and identify because standard abdominal radiographs
did not provide the information we are provided on computed
tomography (CT) scans today and because clinical findings and
symptoms overlap: abdominal distention, nausea, vomiting, and
abdominal pain are common to both.
Ileus is a condition of abnormal and inhibited motility of the
gastrointes tinal tract. Gastric content, liquids, and intestinal fluids fail to
move through the intestinal tract because of ineffective intestinal
peristalsis. There is no mechanical obstruction, but effective organized
aboral passage of liquids and gas is absent. Other adjectives that describe
ileus are paralytic, adynamic, and postoperative. It is commonly
observed in a patient who has just had abdominal surgery and the bowels
have not resumed normal function. Ileus is also frequently seen in
intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are critically ill and are receiving
a variety of medications, many of which affect gut motility. In
hospitalized patients, ileus is generally gradual to acute in onset and
resolves once the underlying condition has been corrected. Patients with
a SBO, on the other hand, have normal intestinal motility but, instead,
have a blockage of the gut that prevents normal passage of fluid and gas
through the intestine. There is a physical barrier that obstructs the
intestinal lumen at some point along its path; it could be an adhesion, an
abdominal hernia, or a tumor. Abdominal distention with crampy,
colicky, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, and obstipation are the
hallmark symptoms. Early on, bowel sounds are active and high pitched.
The typical patient with an SBO will come to the office or emergency
department complaining of crampy abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting,
and worsening obstipation. The patient will have hyperactive bowel
sounds, tympany to percussion, and likely a history of previous abdom
inal surgery. The most common causes are adhesions and abdominal wall
hernias. Plain radiographs of the abdomen will show gaseous distention
of the small bowel in the supine position and often show an outline of the
valvulae conniventes. The upright radiographs classically will show
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 657
FIG 7. Multiple air/fluid levels in inverted U-shaped loops with associated small bowel distention
in adhesive SBO. Arrow points to one of many air/fluid filled levels in this abdominal xray.
(Reprinted with permission from WetPaint, http://wikiradiography.com/page/Small Bowel
Obstruction.)
ments, sepsis, organ failure, and drug and medication toxicity each can
contribute to an ileus. Many drugs affect the sympathetic and parasym
pathetic innervation of the gut and thus motility. The opiates, calcium
channel blockers, psychotropic drugs, and pain medicines are common
contributors to ileus. It is important to remember that in the surgical
patient, unrecognized or untreated infection either in the abdomen or the
chest is often a cause of prolonged ileus.45
Distinguishing mechanical SBO from ileus is best assisted by radio
graphic examinations. First, the plain films will demonstrate whether an
obstruction is present. The CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis with oral
contrast show where the obstruction is and what the lesion is. When ileus
is present, there is no focal point of obstruction; gas and liquid are seen
throughout the small bowel and colon. There is no transition zone as one
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 659
sees with SBO with dilated bowel upstream and decompressed bowel
distally. An added benefit of the CT scan is that it images the entire
abdomen and its contents and can identify other causes for the ileus and
abdominal distention, such as an abscess, diverticulitis, or pancreatitis,
which is really the patient’s problem.
Fortunately, today we have very good imaging techniques to help us
evaluate the bowel and its neighboring organs. When the gut is not
working, we have total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and good critical care
units to support the patient until the underlying conditions can be treated.
Small Bowel vs. Large Bowel Obstruction. With the assistance of
high-quality body imaging techniques, it is usually possible for the
surgeon to distinguish SBO from a large bowel obstruction (LBO). Yet,
there is some overlap in the signs and symptoms that can make this
distinction a challenge when one first sees the patient in the office or the
emergency department.
The symptoms of SBO are abdominal distention, crampy abdominal
pain, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Vomiting, bilious or feculent, is
com mon, whereas this is a later event in colonic obstruction. Paroxysms
of abdominal pain occurring at 4-10-minute intervals are typical.
Large bowel obstructions, usually from colon cancer or strictures from
diverticulitis, are seldom acute; there is usually a several-day to several-
week history of constipation and change in bowel habits. Mid abdominal
pain and abdominal distention are the 2 most consistent signs. Blood in
the stool and anemia are strongly suggestive of carcinoma. Per rectal
examination, an empty rectal vault is suggestive of a proximal colon
obstruction, and blood on the examining finger indicates a distal lesion.
Diarrhea may be present as a function of liquid stool passing around the
obstructing lesion. The abdomen is distended and tympanic as with the
SBO. Cascading bowel sounds and borborygmus are often present,
whereas high-pitched bowel sounds are heard only if there is
superimposed SBO. Patients with LBO are likely to be more elderly than
the SBO group of patients.
The progression of symptoms in colonic obstruction depends in part on
the patency of the ileocecal valve. If this valve is incompetent, there is
retrograde decompression of the colon, the onset of symptoms will be
gradual, and there may be some feculent vomiting. Radiologic studies are
the most important diagnostic tools to establish the presence or absence
of colonic obstruction and the location. Plain abdominal radiographs
should be obtained first in the upright (if possible) and supine positions.
These will show mild to marked distention of the colon proximal to the
lesion and may show small bowel distention if the ileocecal valve is
incompetent (Fig 9). The plain radiographs can be diagnostic for cecal
volvulus and sigmoid volvulus (Figs 10, 11A and
660 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
FIG 9. Distended large bowel with competent ileocecal valve in a patient with obstructing rectal
carcinoma. (Reprinted with permission from Jon Lund,
http://learncolorectalsurgery.com/#/abdominal x-ray/4549818580.)
FIG 13. Massive dilation of small bowel with no air in the colon or rectum. Patient had a complete
bowel obstruction that necessitated laparotomy. (Reprinted with permission from Cameron JL.
Current Surgical Therapy (ed 8). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, 2004.)
FIG 14. Partial SBO associated with air-fluid levels, abdominal distention, and air in the colon
and rectum. Arrows point to colorectal air. (Reprinted with permission from Cameron JL. Current
Surgical Therapy (ed 8). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, 2004.)
FIG 15. Arrow points to a single dilated segment of small bowel in a high jejunal obstruction.
Note the paucity of dilated loops and distention. (Reprinted with permission from WetPaint, http://
wikiradiography.com/page/Small Bowel Obstruction.)
( 95%) that there will be clinical resolution without the need for
operation; otherwise the SBO must be considered complete and
operation should be planned if there are no clinical signs of resolution
(Fig 18).
It has been suggested that the oral administration of a small quantity
(eg, 100 mL) of gastrograffin can lead to the resolution of SBO.
Gastrograffin is a hyperosmolar liquid that draws water into the bowel
lumen, perhaps improving bowel edema and enhancing contractility. It
should be used cautiously in patients at risk for pulmonary aspiration, as
introduction of the material into the bronchial tree can cause life-
threatening pneumoni
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 669
FIG 19. Barium small bowel follow-through revealing a tight stricture (arrow) in the terminal ileum
in a patient with partial SBO and known Crohn’s disease.
FIG 21. Internal hernia after gastric bypass with dilated loops of small bowel and classic
mesenteric swirl (arrow).
FIG 23. Typical “bulls eye” (arrow) or “target sign” associated with small bowel intussusception
causing SBO. (Reprinted with permission from James Heilman, MD,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:VolvulusCT.PNG.)
obstruction. This virtually always brings relief to the patient and also
protects against aspiration. Although long tubes with mercury-filled bags
at the end were used in past surgical periods, virtually nobody uses long
tubes today because of the complexity of their management and little
evidence that their efficacy is any greater than standard length NG
tubes.54 In fact, multiple prospective studies show no advantage to using
the longer tubes.
The use of antibiotics in patients with SBO is also somewhat contro
versial. Although no one argues with the need for preoperative
antibiotics in the patient with bowel obstruction who is going to surgery,
there appears to be little evidence that antibiotic use in the patient with
SBO is indicated, and few practitioners administer antibiotics while
patients are being observed.
The clinical spectrum of SBO varies widely, but the 9 most common
clinical scenarios include (l) complete bowel obstruction, (2) partial SBO
— high grade, (3) partial SBO—low grade, (4) bowel obstruction in a
virgin abdomen, (5) recurrent SBO, (6) bowel obstruction immediately
after operation, (7) bowel obstruction in a patient with known
malignancy or recurrent malignancy, (8) bowel obstruction with a known
history of Crohn’s disease and (9) SBO after gastric bypass (Table 5). A
brief consideration of each of these clinical scenarios is helpful in
deciding the best management course. The actual decision-making
process for patients with SBO is often the most difficult and challenging
of any area in gastrointestinal surgery. The clinician must be very alert
and aware as he or she manages the patient after admission to look for
any signs of improvement or deterioration. Multiple follow-up abdominal
radiographs must be obtained associated with frequent clinical
reexaminations to monitor the progress of the patient.
Patients with complete bowel obstruction merit the closest and most
critical attention. Because of the dangers of incarceration leading to
strangulation as well as closed loop obstructions, patients with complete
676 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
bowel obstruction demand immediate attention. If a patient presents with
significantly distended bowel, a history of obstipation for the past 12
hours, and no recent improvement, consideration should be given to
going to the operating room immediately. This is particularly true if the
patient has unrelenting pain and the classic tetrad associated with
strangulated bowel, including leukocytosis, fever, tachycardia, and
severe abdominal pain. The dictum that “the sun should never set on a
complete bowel obstruction” is as true today as it was 50 years ago.
Patients presenting with significantly distended bowel and crampy
abdom inal pain, but who have evidence of gas in the colon and rectum
on the abdominal radiographs as well as a recent history of having passed
flatus (high-grade partial SBO), may be admitted for initial observation.
These patients also require very close vigilance. They should be
reexamined on a regular basis, and repeat abdominal radiographs should
be obtained every 8 to 12 hours to see whether the distended bowel is
worsening or improving. Patients with partial high-grade SBO should
begin to improve within 24 to 48 hours. It is clear that most cases of
adhesive SBO that are likely to resolve will do so within 48 hours.
Patients with high-grade obstruction who do not improve within 24 hours
of admission should be taken to the operating room for exploration. Few
other diagnostic studies are indicated, although occa sionally a CT scan
will confirm the point of obstruction and edema of the bowel proximal to
the obstruction.
The category of patients who have a low-grade partial SBO
characteristi cally have less abdominal distension and have passed some
gas or stool recently but continue to have crampy abdominal pain and
appear to partially resolve but become symptomatic on liquid or oral
intake. With less distension, less abdominal pain, and radiographs that
reveal some improve ment in the bowel gas patterns, these patients can
be safely watched up to 5-7 days as long as improvement is seen. This
group of patients often benefit from an enteroclysis study to demonstrate
the site of obstruction and degree of luminal narrowing. A contrast study
that shows substantial dilation proximal to the obstruction site and slow
passage of contrast through the obstructed site after 5 days indicates the
patient should probably be taken to the operating room for adhesiolysis.
On the other hand, if the patient continues to improve, distension
diminishes, and radiographs reveal resolu tion of air-fluid levels, the
patient may be cautiously placed back on clear liquids and advanced to a
low-fiber diet as tolerated.
Patients with bowel obstruction and a virgin abdomen virtually always
merit an exploratory laparotomy for either diagnostic purposes or
surgical treatment of the offending etiology. Most commonly, the cause
is incarceration in an abdominal wall hernia (Fig 26), but other causes
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 677
FIG 26. Cross table lateral radiograph revealing incarcerated umbilical hernia (arrow) in a patient
with a virgin abdomen. (Reprinted with permission from WetPaint, http://wikiradiography.com/
page/Small Bowel Obstruction.)
and 60% of all patients who present with an SBO require operation, 70,71
and after an operation for lysis of adhesions, the incidence of recurrent
adhesive SBO leading to an operation ranges from 11% to 21%. 72,73
Operative procedures to prevent recurrent SBO have been generally
disappointing and only occasionally successful. Suture plication has
gener ally had poor results and is used by few surgeons today. Somewhat
more successful has been an operatively placed Baker long intestinal
tube, which is passed through the stomach like a Stamm gastrostomy,
traverses the entire length of the small intestine, and reaches the cecum
where a 30 mL balloon is filled with saline to prevent the tube from
retracting back into the small bowel. Obstructive recurrence occurs in
3.3% to 8.0% of patients.74,75
Adhesion Prevention
A voluminous literature on adhesion prevention has been written,
including reviews by Connolly and Ellis 76,77 (Table 11, Table 12). In his
review, Ellis suggested that the best way to prevent adhesions was to
minimize trauma during surgery: (1) avoid introduction of foreign
698 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
TABLE 11. History of attempts to prevent adhesion
1885 Rubbing oil used to prevent adhesions
1886 Saline hydrofloatation described
1892 “Fibrinolysin” (sodium salicylate and thiosinamine) marketed 1902 Gum
Arabic used as visceral lubricant
1905 “Cargile” (bovine cecal peritoneum) introduced
1920 Intra-abdominal proteases described
1940 Heparin first studied
1957 “Amfetin” (amniotic fluid) marketed
1994 “Seprafilm” studied in prospective randomized trial
TABLE 12. Other agents used to diminish adhesions
Oral phosphorus Shark skin
Collodion Lanolin
Physostigmine Chyme
Liquid petroleum Fish bladder
Omental grafts Peritoneum
Metal foils Gold-beater’s skin
material (talc, etc), (2) leave raw serosal areas open, (3) cover injured
areas with viable tissue, such as omentum, and (4) place omentum
behind the abdominal wall incision. Additional suggestions should
include preventing serosal desiccation with moist lap pads, use of wound
protectors, gentle handling of peritonealized structures, and meticulous
dissection in as small an area as possible.
Strategies for preventing adhesions have generally fallen into the
categories listed in Table 13. A review of the experimental work done in
each of these areas is appropriate and helpful to understand the difficulty
in solving this clinical conundrum.
Irrigants
As previously mentioned, both normal saline and lactated Ringer’s
solution have been used to fill the peritoneal cavity at the end of a case.
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 699
The presumption has been that “floating the bowels” would prevent the
injured serosal surfaces from coming in contact with each other, thus
preventing adhesion formation. More than 20 studies have been con
ducted evaluating “hydroflotation” as a method to reduce adhesions
postoperatively. In the meta-analysis of the aforementioned studies,
Wiseman and colleagues reported that no significant difference was seen
between control and experimental groups.78
Anticoagulants
A large number of studies have been conducted to assess the efficacy of
anticoagulants in preventing adhesive SBO. A number of investigations
have evaluated dextran 70 as a possible antiadhesion irrigant. The
beneficial effects of dextran were observed in several animal studies.
Indeed, 2 prospective clinical studies in humans demonstrated some
efficacy of dextran in preventing pelvic adhesions, which cause infertil
ity.79,80 However, an equal number of studies have demonstrated no
improvement with dextran,81,82 and because of possible serious side
effects, dextran is not commonly used in adhesion prevention today.
Similarly, intraperitoneal heparin has been extensively studied to
evaluate its potential antiadhesion effect. Initial studies in animals
suggested that intraperitoneal heparin might be effective, but human
studies with heparin were disappointing and were complicated by
bleeding complications.82,83
Anti-Inflammatory Agents
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents were shown to reduce
peritoneal adhesions in a variety of animal models. However, Nishimura
and colleagues and Holtz demonstrated that ibuprofen had no impact
when given to humans postoperatively. 84,85 Generally, NSAIDs have
been unpredictable and erratically effective.
Corticosteroids were shown in animal and humans to reduce postoper
ative adhesions.86-88 However, intraperitoneal steroids in human studies
have had mixed and unpredictable results in work done by Glucksman
and colleagues and Seitz and colleagues. 87,89 In addition, use of steroids
in a postoperative situation is limited by immunosuppression and delayed
wound healing.
Fibrinolytics
Fibrinolytic preparations would intuitively seem like the ideal agents to
prevent postoperative adhesions. Both streptokinase and urokinase have
been shown to have some impact on adhesion formation,90,91 but further
700 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
studies have been disappointing,92,93 and the surgeon worries about the
impact of such preparations on anastomotic and fascial wound healing.
Recombinant t-PA has been shown to diminish adhesions in animal
models without having a detrimental effect on wound or anastomotic
healing.94,95 However, other studies revealed that adhesions still devel
oped at the site of colonic anastomoses and ischemic small intestine. 96
Clearly, this agent must be studied more thoroughly in humans and holds
some promise as a future antiadhesion agent. Currently, most investiga
tors agree that the balance between t-PA and t-PA inhibitors (PA-I) holds
the key to successful treatment of obstructive adhesions in the future.
Fear of bleeding, anastomotic disruption, and wound dehiscence have
further limited the use of fibrinolytic agents.
Barriers
The area in which the greatest strides have been made in adhesion
prevention in the past 15 years is that of barriers that separate the various
injured serosal surfaces while they are healing. The concept is simple but
quite effective: placement of a mechanical barrier between the injured
healing serosal surfaces, which persists until all serosal healing has taken
place, will prevent adhesive bowel obstruction. An added advantage of
this approach is that it should have little impact on the normal healing
mechanisms, and if the agent is inert, nonreactive, and absorbable, there
should be little associated morbidity. Several products in membrane form
have been used clinically to obviate adhesions after lower abdominal or
pelvic operations. There are also a few liquid or gel preparations that
have been tested.
Hyaluronate/Carboxymethylcellulose
By far, the membrane tested most extensively in adhesion prevention is
a hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose preparation marketed as Sepra
film (Genzyme, Cambridge, MA). This somewhat brittle membrane is
absorbed within 7 to 10 days after placement in the abdomen, and
excreted within a month. It has been extensively studied for safety and
efficacy in a number of clinical studies and appears to have very few, if
any, side effects except some questions of a slightly increased risk for
anastomotic leak if wrapped entirely around a fresh anastomosis. A host
of retrospective and prospective randomized studies have been conducted
to ascertain whether it decreases adhesions. The earliest study by Becker
and colleagues was prospective and randomized with adhesion assess
ment by blinded observers.88 Approximately 175 patients who underwent
ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and protective loop ileostomy were
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 701
randomized to receive the membrane or not, and adhesion evaluation was
conducted at the second-look laparotomy to close the ileostomy 8 weeks
later. The authors reported significantly fewer and less severe adhesions
in the membrane group.
In a group of patients undergoing rectal surgery who needed an
ileostomy, Tang and colleagues randomized patients who would seek
stoma closure into membrane vs. no membrane groups. At the second
operation, the authors encountered fewer and less severe adhesions in the
membrane group and fewer stoma complications (mean adhesion score
5.81 0.5 vs. 7.82 0.6, P 0.05). The authors of both this and the
previous study observed that the dissection was much easier in the
membrane group.97 Similarly Vrijland and colleagues prospectively
randomized a group of 71 patients undergoing a colorectal resection with
Hartmanns into membrane and no-membrane groups. At operation to
close the stoma, a blinded evaluator assessed the field for incidence,
severity, and complications of adhesions. The investigation reported a
significant decrease in severity but not incidence of adhesions (OR, 0.34;
95% confidence interval, 0.06-1.98).98
A Canadian group led by Cohen in a prospective multicenter trial used
the model of the original group to randomize IPAA patients into
membrane and control groups. The membrane used in this study was
Seprafilm with glycerol added to make the membrane softer, pliable, and
less brittle. Using laparoscopy at the time of ileostomy closure, adhesions
were graded according to incidence and severity. The investigators
reported a significant decrease in incidence and severity in the membrane
group.99 A similar prospective randomized study by Kusunoki and
colleagues was conducted in patients who needed a protective ileostomy
after low anterior resection. During stoma closure, the severity of
adhesions was assessed and found to be significantly reduced in both the
peristomal area and posterior midline. Once again the authors comment
on shorter surgical time and less blood loss. 100 Finally, a Cochrane review
conducted by Kumar and colleagues evaluating 6 randomized trials using
Seprafilm revealed that use of the membrane significantly reduced the
extent and incidence of adhesions.101
Although the early studies of Seprafilm were conducted to ascertain the
membrane’s efficacy in reducing adhesions, they were not designed to
assess impact of the membrane on actual SBO. The most important study
in the literature, which truly assessed the impact of the hyaluronate/
carboxymethylcellulose membrane on actual bowel obstruction, was
published in 2006. In a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial
involving 1791 patients, Fazio and colleagues designed the study so that
702 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
TABLE 14. Efficacy of Seprafilm in reducing small bowel obstruction (SBO)
Author Journal Study type Patient no. (Con vs. Rx) (Con vs. Rx) complications
Incidence of Re-operation Septic (Con vs. Rx)
SBO (%) for SBO (%)
Fazio102 DCR PRCT 1701 12 vs. 12 3.4 vs. 1.8* 3 vs. 4 Salum 104 DCR Retro 438 6.1 vs. 4.5
3.9 vs. 1.5 1.1 vs. 3.4 Mottri105 Am Surg Retro 368 14.2 vs. 6.5* 4.4 vs. 1.6 13 vs. 15
Kudo103 Surg Today Retro 51 20 vs. 0* — —
*p 0.05.
Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene
Polytetrafluoroethylene is widely used in vascular surgery and has been
used to prevent pelvic adhesions in women with adhesion-related infer
tility. It is an extremely inert nonabsorbable membrane that generates
minimal inflammatory reaction after placement. The membrane is occa
sionally used in the repair of pericardium or peritoneum and has been
experimentally shown to reduce adhesions. 111 Marketed as Preclude, one
(W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Newark, DE) clinical study showed a
reduction in postsurgical adhesions with its use, 112 and its ability to
reduce abdominal adhesions as part of a composite mesh material (Dual-
Mesh) in ventral hernia repair has been reported. 113
However, like Interceed, most studies evaluating the efficacy of
Preclude in adhesion prevention have been in women with pelvic
adhesion-related infertility. A major disadvantage of this product is that
it must be removed eventually and cannot stay in place on a permanent
basis.
Icodextrin
A 4% solution of icodextrin, a glucose polymer, has been used with
some success in preventing adhesions. The solution is a less concentrated
form of the liquid used in peritoneal dialysis, 7.5% icodextrin. It is the
most thoroughly studied and the only FDA-approved liquid antiadhesive
agent commercially available. At the conclusion of an operative abdom
inal procedure, 1000 mL of 4% icodextrin is left in the peritoneal cavity
to separate loops of bowel while their injured serosal surfaces heal. The
solution remains in the peritoneal cavity for a few days and prevents the
damaged serosal surfaces from coming in contact with each other. The
solution is marketed as Adept (Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL) and has
been fairly thoroughly studied in both animals and humans.
704 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
In both rabbits and rats, placing Adept in the peritoneal cavity in both
peritonitis and wound healing models, postoperative adhesions were
reduced significantly.114,115 In a large multicenter, prospective, random
ized, double-blind study by Brown and colleagues, Adept was compared
with lactated Ringer’s solution in women undergoing laparoscopic
gynecologic surgery for adhesiolysis. At a second laparoscopy 4 to 8
weeks later, the icodextrin solution was significantly more likely to
reduce adhesions116 but was also associated with labial swelling in the
experimental group. In another randomized clinical study by DiZerega
and colleagues, the incidence of adhesions was decreased from 52% to
32% at a second laparoscopy.117 However, a meta-analysis of prospective
randomized studies evaluating Adept was equivocal and could not
recommend it for intra-abdominal adhesion prevention. It currently has
little use in general surgery circles. 118 Adept was recently approved by
the FDA primarily for use in reducing pelvic adhesions, which cause
infertility.
Polyethylene Glycol
A commercially available preparation comprised of an old standard
used in bowel preps, polyethylene glycol, has been developed, which
involves spraying 2 precursors on the injured serosal or peritoneal
surfaces. The combined agents form a viscous gelatinous material, which
adheres to peritoneal surfaces and prevents serosal surfaces from coming
into contact. This preparation carries the name Spraygel (Confluent
Surgical, Waltham, MA) and is available in Germany and Australia.
Animal studies have shown positive outcomes in reducing intraperitoneal
adhesions, and a few randomized studies have shown a reduction in
pelvic adhesions from patients receiving Spraygel on closing the
abdomen.119 However, once again, a Cochrane meta-analysis failed to
achieve statis tical significance when Spraygel was used compared with
the control.118 A single component gel marketed as Adhibit (Angiotech
Pharmaceuticals, Vancouver, BC) has shown encouraging results in a
randomized experi mental trial involving patients undergoing
myomectomy surgery.120
Fibrin Glues
Some anecdotal observations in operative fields in which fibrin glues
were utilized demonstrated a paucity of adhesions during reoperative
surgery. These preparations consist of fibrinogen and thrombin and,
when mixed, produce tenaciously adherent gelatinous fibrin. Studies
reveal that fibrin increases t-PA and PA-I by peritoneal cells 121 and may
impact adhesion formation. However, experimental studies are
conflicting and few
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 705
TABLE 15. Preventing adhesions
FDA-approved barrier agents
Incert Anika Modified hyal acid Gel Peritoneum Animal Used in spinal surgery
Hylans Inamed Hyaluronic modification Liquid Joints Animal Withdrawn from US market
Caprolactone Solvay Cyclic lactone ester Liquid Peritoneum Animal Prevents tendon adhesions
Hyskon Medisan Dextran Liquid Peritoneum Animal/ human Mixed results
REFERENCES
1. Wiseman DM. Adhesion prevention: past the future. Perit Surg 1998;VII. 39:1-38.
2. Moss W, McFetridge EM. Acute intestinal obstruction: a comparative study of 511
cases, with special reference to the lowered mortality achieved by modern methods of
therapy. Ann Surg 1934;100:158-66.
3. Bevan PG. Adhesive obstruction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1984;66:164-9. 4. Menzies
D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions: how big is the problem? Ann R Coll
Surg Engl 1990;72:60-3.
5. Irvin TT. Abdominal pain: a surgical audit of 1190 emergency admissions. Br J Surg
1989;76:1121-5.
6. Ray NF, Larsen JW, Stillman RJ, et al. Economic impact of hospitalizations for
lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet
1993;176:271-6.
7. Tingstedt B, Johansson J, Nehez L, et al. Late abdominal complaints after
appendectomy—readmissions during long-term follow-up. Dig Surg 2004;21:23-7. 8.
Kössi J, Salminen P, Rantala A, et al. Population-based study of the surgical workload
and economic impact of bowel obstruction caused by postoperative adhesions. Br J
Surg 2003;90:1441-4.
9. Playforth RH, Holloway JB, Griffen WO. Mechanical small bowel obstruction: a
plea for earlier surgical intervention. Ann Surg 1970;171:783-7.
10. Laws HL, Aldrete JS. Small-bowel obstruction: a review of 465 cases. South Med J
1976;69(6):733-4.
11. Stewardson RH, Bombeck CT, Nyhus LM. Critical operative management of small
bowel obstruction. Ann Surg 1978;187:189-93.
12. Bizer LS, Liebling RW, Delany HM, et al. Small bowel obstruction. Surgery
1981;89:407-13.
13. Attard JP, MacLean AR. Adhesive small bowel obstruction: epidemiology, biology
and prevention. Can J Surg 2007;50(4):291-300.
14. Dijkstra FR, Nieuwenhuijzen M, Reijnen MM, et al. Recent clinical developments
in pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of intra-abdominal
adhesions. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 2000;(232):52-9.
15. Raftery AT. Effect of peritoneal trauma on peritoneal fibrinolytic activity and
intraperitoneal adhesion formation. An experimental study in the rat. Eur Surg Res
1981;13:397-401.
16. Cheong YC, Laird SM, Li TC, et al. Peritoneal healing and adhesion formation/
reformation. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7:556-66.
17. Holmdahl L, Ivarsson ML. The role of cytokines, coagulation, and fibrinolysis in
peritoneal tissue repair. Eur J Surg 1999;165:1012-9.
18. Reed KL, Stucchi AF, Leeman SE, et al. Inhibitory effects of a neurokinin-1
receptor antagonist on postoperative peritoneal adhesion formation. Ann N Y Acad
Sci 2008;1144:116-26.
19. Thompson J. Pathogenesis and prevention of adhesion formation. Dig Surg
1998;15:153-7.
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 709
20. Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine PM, et al. Peritoneal adhesions: etiology, patho
physiology, and clinical significance. Recent advances in prevention and manage
ment. Dig Surg 2001;18:260-73.
21. Holmdahl L. Making and covering of surgical footprints. Lancet 1999;353:1456-7.
22. Sulaiman H, Dawson L, Laurent GJ, et al. Role of plasminogen activators in
peritoneal adhesion formation. Biochem Soc Trans 2002;30:126-31. 23. Falk K,
Björquist P, Strömqvist M, et al. Reduction of experimental adhesion formation by
inhibition of plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. Br J Surg 2001;88:286-9.
24. Whawell SA, Thompson JN. Cytokine-induced release of plasminogen activator
inhibitor-1 by human mesothelial cells. Eur J Surg 1995;161:315-8. 25. Lauder CIW,
Garcea G, Strickland A, et al. Abdominal adhesion prevention: still a sticky subject. Dig
Surg 2010;27:347-58.
26. Montz FJ, Monk BJ, Lacy SM, et al. Ketorolac tromethamine, a nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drug: ability to inhibit post-radical pelvic surgery adhesions in a
porcine model. Gynecol Oncol 1993;48:76-9.
27. Risberg B. Adhesions: preventive strategies. Eur J Surg Suppl 1997;577:32-9. 28.
Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, et al. Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery?
Surg Endosc 2004;18:898-906.
29. Lundorff P, Hahlin M, Källfelt B, et al. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic
surgery in tubal pregnancy: a randomized trial versus laparotomy. Fertil Steril
1991;55:911-5.
30. Milingos S, Kallipolitis G, Loutradis D, et al. Adhesions: laparoscopic surgery
versus laparotomy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000;900:272-85.
31. Polymeneas G, Theodosopoulos T, Stamatiadis A, et al. A comparative study of
postoperative adhesion formation after laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy.
Surg Endosc 2001;15:41-3.
32. Whang EE, Ashley SW, Zinner MJ. Small intestine. In: Brunicardi FC, Andersen
DK, Billiar TR, et al, eds. Schwartz’s Principles of Surgery. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 8th edn, 2005:1017-54. (Note section: Small-Bowel Obstruction 1027-1031.).
33. Ishitani MB, Jones RS. Intestinal obstruction in adults. In: Scott HW, Sawyers JL,
eds. Surgery of the Stomach, Duodenum, and Small Intestine. Cambridge:
Blackwell Scientific Publications, 2nd edn, 1992:770-88.
34. Wangensteen OH, Rea CE. The distention factor in simple intestinal obstruction.
Surgery 1939;5(3):327-39.
35. Wangensteen OH. Historical aspects of the management of acute intestinal
obstruction. Surgery 1969;65:363-83.
36. Wright HK, O’Brien JJ, Tilson MD. Water absorption in experimental closed
segment obstruction of the ileum in man. Am J Surg 1971;121:96-9. 37. Shields R. The
absorption and secretion of fluid and electrolytes by the obstructed bowel. Br J Surg
1965;52:774-9.
38. Sung DT, Williams LF. Intestinal secretion after intravenous fluid infusion in small
bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 1971;121:91-5.
39. Ruf W, Suehiro GT, Suehiro A, et al. Intestinal blood flow at various intraluminal
pressures in the piglet with closed abdomen. Ann Surg 1980;191:157-63. 40. Ohman U.
Studies on small intestinal obstruction. I. Intraluminal pressure in experimental low
obstruction in the cat. Acta Chir Scand 1975;141:413-6.
710 Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
41. Soybel DI. Ileus and bowel obstruction. In: Greenfield LJ, ed. Surgery Scientific
Principles and Practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 3rd edn,
2001:798-9.
42. Evers BM. Small intestine. In: Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox
KL, eds. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, 17th edn,
2004:1323-77.
43. Gorbach SL. Intestinal microflora. Gastroenterology 1971;60:1110-29. 44. Sykes
PA, Boulter KH, Schofield PF. The microflora of the obstructed bowel. Br J Surg
1976;634:721-5.
45. Bar-Natan M, Larson GM, Stephens G, et al. Delayed gastric emptying after gastric
surgery. Am J Surg 1996;172:24-8.
46. Branco BC, Barmparas G, Schnüriger B, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis
of the diagnostic and therapeutic role of water-soluble contrast agent in adhesive
small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 2010;97:470-8.
47. Abbas S, Bissett IP, Parry BR. Oral water soluble contrast for the management of
adhesive small bowel obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(3):
CD004651.
48. Mallo RD, Salem L, Lalani T, et al. Computed tomography diagnosis of ischemia
and complete obstruction in small bowel obstruction: a systematic review. J
Gastrointest Surg 2005;9(5):690-4.
49. Colon MJ, Telem DA, Wong D, et al. The relevance of transition zones on
computed tomography in the management of small bowel obstruction. Surgery
2010;147:373-7.
50. Schwenter F, Polleti PA, Platon A, et al. Clinicoradiological score for predicting the
risk of strangulated small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 2010;97:1119-25. 51. Zielinski
MD, Eiken PW, Bannon MP, et al. Small bowel obstruction—who needs an operation?
A multivariate prediction model. World J Surg 2010;34(5):910-9.
52. Zielinski MD, Eiken PW, Lohse HSF, et al. Prospective, observational validation of
a multivariate small-bowel obstruction model to predict the need for operative
intervention. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212(6):1068-76.
53. Duda JB, Bhatt S, Dogra VS. Utility of CT whirl sign in guiding management of
small-bowel obstruction. Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(3):743-7.
54. Fleshner PR, Siegman MG, Brolin RE, et al. A prospective randomized trial ofshort
vs. long tubes in adhesive small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 1995;170:366-70. 55.
Bastug DF, Trammell SW, Boland JP, et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel
obstruction. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1991;1:259-62. 56. Schnüriger B,
Barmparas G, Branco BC, et al. Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: a
review of the literature. Am J Surg 2011;201:111-21. 57. Weibel MA, Majno G.
Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery. A postmortem study. Am J
Surg 1973;126:345-53.
58. Franklin ME, Gonzalez JJ, Miter DB, et al. Laparoscopic diagnosis and treatment of
intestinal obstruction. Surg Endosc 2004;18:26-30.
59. Levard H, Boudet M-J, Msika S, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of acute small bowel
obstruction: a multicentre retrospective study. ANZ J Surg 2001;71:641-6. 60. Lujan
HL, Oren A, Plasencia G, et al. Laparoscopic management as the initial treatment of
acute small bowel obstruction. JSLS 2006;10:466-72.
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012 711
61. Zerey M, Sechrist CW, Kercher KW, et al. Laparoscopic management of adhesive
small bowel obstruction. Am Surg 2007;73(8):773-8.
62. Chopra R, McVay C, Phillips E, et al. Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. Am Surg.
2003;69(11):966-8.
63. Tierris I, Mavrantonis C, Stratoulias C, et al. Laparoscopy for acute small bowel
obstruction: indication or contraindication? Surg Endosc 2011;25:531-5. 64. Aguayo P,
Fraser JD, Ilyas S, et al. Laparoscopic management of small bowel obstruction in
children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2011;21(1):85-8. 65. Ghosheh B, Salameh
JR. Laparoscopic approach to acute small bowel obstruction: review of 1061 cases. Surg
Endosc 2007;21:1945-9.
66. Oyasiji T, Helton SW. Survey of opinions on operative management of adhesive
small bowel obstruction: laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the state of
Connecticut. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2516-21.
67. Franko J, O’Connell BG, Mehall JR, et al. The influence of prior abdominal
operations on conversion and complication rates in laparoscopic colorectal
surgery. JSLS 2006;10:169-75.
68. Carson HW. The evolution of the modern treatment of septic peritonitis. Lancet
1923;i:1035-7.
69. Stewart RM, Page CP, Brender J, et al. The incidence and risk of early postoperative
small bowel obstruction. A cohort study. Am J Surg 1987;154:643-7. 70. Wolfson PH,
Bauer JJ, Gelernt IM, et al. Use of the long tube in the management of patients with
small-intestinal obstruction due to adhesions. Arch Surg 1985;120:1001-6.
71. Hofstetter SR. Acute adhesive obstruction of the small intestine. Surg Gynecol
Obstet 1981;152:141-4.
72. Close MB, Christensen NM. Transmesenteric small bowel plication or intraluminal
tube stenting. Indications and contraindications. Am J Surg 1979;138:89-96. 73. Bizer
LS, Delaney HM, Gerut Z. Observations on recurrent intestinal obstruction and modem
non-operative management. Dig Surg 1986;3:229.
74. Jones PF, Thomson SR. The surgical treatment of adhesive obstructions, with
critical appraisal of intra-operative small bowel intubation. In: Ellis H, Lennox M,
eds. Adhesions: the Problems. London: Westminster Hospital Medical School
1983;37-44.
75. Weigelt JA, Snyder WH, Norman JL. Complications and results of 160 Baker tube
plications. Am J Surg 1980;140:810-5.
76. Connolly JE, Smith JW. Intestinal adhesions - present status of prevention and
treatment. Calif Med 1960;92(6):397-9.
77. Ellis H. The cause and prevention of postoperative intraperitoneal adhesions. Surg
Gynecol Obstet 1971;133:497-511.
78. Wiseman DM, Trout JR, Diamond MP. The rates of adhesion development and the
effects of crystalloid solutions on adhesion development in pelvic surgery. Fertil
Steril 1998;70:702-11.
79. Adhesion Study Group. Reduction of postoperative pelvic adhesions with intra
peritoneal 32% dextran 70: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril
1983;40:612-9.
80. Rosenberg SM, Board JA. High-molecular weight dextran in human infertility
surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:380-5.
81. Larsson B, Lalos O, Marsk L, et al. Effect of intraperitoneal instillation of 32% 712
Curr Probl Surg, November 2012
prevention. In: DiZerega GS, ed. Peritoneal Surgery. New York: Springer-Verlag,
2000:441-57.
150. Chalkiadakis GE, Kostakis A, Karayannacos PE, et al. Pentoxifylline in the
treatment of experimental peritonitis in rats. Arch Surg 1985;120:1141-4. 151. Bulbuller
N, Ilhan US, Kirkil C, et al. Can angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors prevent
postoperative adhesions? J Surg Res 2005;125:94-7. 152. Epstein JC, Wilson MS,
Wilkosz S, et al. Human peritoneal adhesions show evidence of tissue remodeling and
markers of angiogenesis. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:1885-92.
153. Bothin C, Midtvedt T, Perbeck L. Orally delivered antibiotics which lower bacterial
numbers decrease experimental intra-abdominal adhesions. Langenbecks Arch
Surg 2003;388:112-5.
154. Pestieau SR, Marchettini P, Stuart OA, et al. Prevention of intraperitoneal adhesions
by intraperitoneal lavage and intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil: experimental studies.
Int Surg 2002;87:195-200.
155. Cubukçu A, Alponat A, Gönüllü NN. Mitomycin-C prevents reformation of intra-
abdominal adhesions after adhesiolysis. Surgery 2002;131:81-4.