• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgical Management of Small Bowel Obstruction – A Comparison of Outcomes

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgical Management of Small Bowel Obstruction – A Comparison of Outcomes

James P Byrne, BScEng, MD, Fady Saleh, MD, MPH, FRCSC, Luciano Ambrosini, MD, Carolina Jimenez, MD, Joshua Gnanasegaram, Fayez Quereshy, MD, MBA, FRCSC, Timothy D Jackson, MD, MPH, FRCSC, Allan Okrainec, MDCM, MHPE, FACS, FRCSC. Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto.

As the laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction (SBO) grows as a tool in the armamentarium of the acute care surgeon, it is critical that outcomes are tracked to aid surgeons in making evidence-based decisions with regards to management of their patients. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes in patients with SBO treated laparoscopically compared to those treated by open surgery.

We performed a retrospective review of all patients managed surgically for small bowel obstruction at our institution from 2009 to 2012. Data abstracted included pre-operative patient characteristics and investigations. Outcomes collected included details of postoperative recovery, length of stay (LOS), morbidity and mortality. The laparoscopic group included all cases started as such, regardless of conversion. Continuous variables were compared using Student’s t-test, while categorical variables with the Chi-square test. Univariate and multivariate analysis provided a comparison of the incidence of complications between both groups, while multivariable logistical regression was performed to assess predictors of adverse outcome.

A total of 246 patients were managed surgically for acute small bowel obstruction during this period. 83 patients were treated with laparoscopy, while 163 had conventional open surgery. The most common etiology found at surgery was adhesive (63%). Mean operative time was not significantly different between laparoscopic and open surgery groups (143.0 vs. 151.0 minutes, p=0.362). There was however a significant reduction in time to recovery of bowel function in the laparoscopic group as indicated by passage of flatus (3.0 vs. 4.0 days, p=0.017), as was there in median length of stay (5 vs. 8 days, p<0.001). Overall complication rate was significantly lower in those treated with laparoscopic surgery (30.1% vs. 45.4%, p=0.021), with associated reduction in the odds of an adverse event through multivariable logistical regression (OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.28 – 0.91, p=0.024).

Treatment of patients with small bowel obstruction by an initial laparoscopic approach is safe, associated with quicker recovery, reduced length of stay, and a reduction in adverse outcome as compared to conventional open management. Further research is needed to understand predictors of successful laparoscopic completion.
 

Complications in Laparoscopic vs. Open Surgery for SBO: Univariate Analysis
Complication Open, n (%) Laparoscopic, n (%) OR (95% CI) P-value
Surgical site infection  39 (23.9)  14 (16.9)  0.65 (0.30-1.32)  0.203
Early reoperation  9 (5.5)  4 (4.8)  0.87 (0.19-3.22)  0.816
Death  16 (9.8)  3 (3.6)  0.34 (0.06-1.26)  0.085
Major complications 41 (25.2)   12 (14.5)  0.50 (0.23-1.06)  0.054
 Any Complication  74 (45.4)  25 (30.1)  0.52 (0.28-0.95)  0.021

 

Predictors of Adverse Outcome: Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis
Variable Odds Ratio 95% CI P-value
Laparoscopic vs. Open Approach 0.50 0.28-0.91 0.024
Age 1.03 1.01-1.05 0.003
ASA* 1.69 0.57-5.02 0.348
Male 1.34 0.77-2.32 0.298
Previous abdominal surgery 0.86 0.45-1.63 0.650
Hypertension 0.85 0.45-1.57 0.595
Diabetes mellitus 1.10 0.52-2.29 0.806
Cardiac disease 1.43 0.76-2.68 0.267

*ASA 3-5 compared to 1-2

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search