Laparoscopic Lysis of Adhesions for Closed Loop Small Bowel Obstruction
Main Text
Table of Contents
Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions is a minimally-invasive approach to the resolution of a closed loop small bowel obstruction (SBO) due to adhesions. A patient with an SBO can present with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and obstipation. History of prior abdominal surgeries serves as a significant risk factor for development of intra-abdominal adhesions. Imaging using either plain abdominal radiography or computed tomography (CT) can be diagnostic for closed loop SBOs. Conservative management with gastrografin can be considered in some SBOs, but closed loop SBOs are considered surgical emergencies. Utilization of specific signs (two transition points, pneumoperitoneum, signs of bowel ischemia) on imaging and patient presentation can facilitate earlier intervention. Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions can resolve symptoms through releasing the bowel from the adhesion to improve flow. Lysis of adhesions can be performed open, laparoscopically, or with robotic techniques. In this case, we present a laparoscopic lysis of adhesions in a patient with a closed loop small bowel obstruction.
Laparoscopy; minimally-invasive surgery; adhesiolysis; intestinal obstruction; mechanical obstruction; small bowel obstruction.
Small bowel obstructions account for 2–8% of total emergency department presentations.1 Among those, a smaller portion will have a closed loop small bowel obstruction. Etiologies of small bowel obstructions and their incidence rates include: 60–75% due to postoperative adhesions, 3–20% due to malignancy in either the small bowel, mesentery, or retroperitoneum, up to 10% due to hernias, 10% due to inflammatory bowel disease, and 3–5% due to “other” causes (volvulus, infection, intussusception, radiation enteritis, mechanical obstruction, or gallstone ileus).2 While approximately 60–85% of adhesion-related obstructions resolve without operative intervention, these patients did not have concerns for more severe bowel compromise, and did not include indications for needing immediate surgery such as free air on imaging, signs of intestinal ischemia, or signs of a closed-loop obstruction.3 Among operative interventions, a study conducted in 2019, 262 patients underwent adhesive small bowel obstruction surgery over the course of 9 years. 70% of the procedures were open and 30% were laparoscopic in approach with a 38.5% conversion from laparoscopic to open.4 While there is extensive research and knowledge surrounding small bowel obstructions, there still exists a need for clarity and standardization on the identification, management, and treatment of closed loop bowel obstructions. Proper understanding of closed loop small bowel obstructions will facilitate efficient and effective delivery of care and improve overall patient outcomes.
The patient is a 59-year-old, Spanish-speaking woman with a past medical history significant for hypothyroidism, anxiety, depression, esophagitis, hyperlipidemia, iron deficiency anemia, and cervical cancer treated with chemotherapy and radiation. She presented to the emergency department with a 2 day history of progressively worsening nausea, vomiting, obstipation, and worsening epigastric and periumbilical pain. Her surgical history include an open appendectomy as well as a laparoscopic lysis of adhesions a year prior for persistent small bowel obstruction. Home medications include acetaminophen, levothyroxine, and polyethylene glycol as needed. She does not drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. She does not have any known drug allergies.
Suspicion for a small bowel obstruction may be raised in a patient presenting with symptoms of abdominal distention, nausea and emesis, failure to pass flatus or bowel movements, and abdominal pain (may or may not be crampy or colicky in nature).2, 3, 5 In patients with a closed-loop SBO, distention may be limited or negligible. Additional systemic signs found in acute SBO include findings of dehydration, tachycardia, and orthostatic hypotension. Visualization on abdominal inspection to identify scars from previous abdominal procedures is prudent as prior surgeries impose the risk of adhesion formation.
Findings on physical exam for a small bowel obstruction typically include tenderness to palpation with or without guarding.6 On auscultation, bowel sounds may be faint while an acute obstruction may be associated with high-pitched sounds. On percussion, a patient with distention will be hyperresonant to percussion while fluid-filled loops will be dull sounding.
In this case, the patient’s physical exam was significant for tachycardia, which was resolved with fluid resuscitation. Her abdomen was flat and soft, but tender to palpation in the epigastric and periumbilical areas. The patient’s BMI was 19.53. Her ASA score was 2. Nasogastric tube placement prior to surgery resolved symptoms of nausea and emesis.
Upon suspicion of an SBO, imaging can facilitate making a diagnosis. In a patient with significant abdominal distention, nausea, and/or emesis, decompression via nasogastric (NG) tube may be necessary. Traditional radiographic images can be rapidly administered. Findings on plain radiography can guide clinical management, but a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast is most useful. Free air on plain abdominal radiograph imaging is highly indicative of acute SBOs that requires immediate surgical intervention.3 A closed loop obstruction has been noted to be more difficult to identify on radiologic studies.7 A closed loop obstruction on imaging will appear as either dilated that is fluid-filled or with air-fluid levels, and may have a “whirl sign” or appear with a C or U-shaped bowel segment.3, 8 A whirl sign indicates twisting of the mesentery. While closed loop SBOs due to adhesions is often a diagnosis of exclusion, identification of two transition points can facilitate distinguishing closed loop SBOs due to adhesions.7, 8, 9
This patient underwent a CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis with contrast. Imaging revealed multiple dilated loops of bowel with air-fluid levels throughout the abdomen and two transition points in the mid-abdomen. Findings were concerning for a closed loop obstruction indicating need for immediate operative treatment.
The small bowel is composed of the duodenum, jejunum, and the ileum, each with their own unique histological markers. The proximal half of the duodenum arises from the foregut, while the distal half of the duodenum through the proximal ⅔ of the transverse colon arises from the midgut. The layers of the small bowel include the mucosa (containing villi and crypts), submucosa, muscularis propria, and the serosa. Overlaying these structures is the greater omentum.
There are three greater categories for the etiology of an SBO: intrinsic lesion (neoplasm, congenital malformations, strictures), extrinsic lesion (adhesions, hernias, volvulus, SMA syndrome), or an intraluminal obstruction (intussusception, gallstones, feces or meconium, foreign body, etc.). Closed loop SBO, while an uncommon type of SBO, is often from internal herniation (twisting), congenital bands, adhesions (both postoperative and spontaneous), and malrotation.10 Adhesions are the leading cause of a closed loop SBO. In a literature review on acute abdominal pain, researchers found that 75% of cases of SBO are a result of postoperative adhesive bands.5 In closed loop SBO, there are two points of obstruction resulting in a proximal and distal occlusion of a segment of bowel. Among patients who have an abdominal surgical history, studies have found that up to 15–20% of cases will experience SBO recurrence.11 Research findings vary in terms of frequency of closed loop SBO among all SBOs with estimates ranging from 5–42% of individuals with an SBO will have a closed loop SBO.12 Additionally, patients who have received pelvic and/or abdominal radiation are at greater risk for developing SBO due to adhesions, bowel wall fibrosis, and dysmotility.13
Closed loop obstructions prevent forward movement of abdominal contents and strangulation of bowel poses risks for ischemia, necrosis, and perforation.3 Most common findings for closed loop SBOs include the aforementioned nausea and emesis, failure to pass flatus or bowel movements, and abdominal pain. Typically, patients experiencing an acute exacerbation reduce dietary intake due to nausea and vomiting.
Treatment for an SBO may be managed either conservatively or via surgical intervention. Approximately 60–85% of adhesion-related SBOs resolve without surgery, but determining who will or will not fail a priori is difficult to ascertain.3 Conservative management can include diet intake restriction, intravenous hydration, nasogastric decompression.14 Rapid identification of etiology of the obstruction should inform next steps. For example, distinction between a closed loop and a simple or partial bowel obstruction is imperative, as a closed loop obstruction is considered a surgical emergency due to low probability of self-resolution and substantial risk of complication if left untreated.15 Gastrografin does not serve a purpose for closed loop obstructions, thus a CT scan is necessary prior to administration.16 Surgical options include laparoscopy or laparotomy. While surgery poses risks for introducing opportunities for development of adhesions, the adverse risks associated with abstaining from intervention are greater.
This patient displayed symptoms and signs of an SBO, and given her past history with SBOs and surgical abdominal history, she met the criterion for concern for an SBO. Following confirmatory imaging, CT results indicated the need for emergent surgery to resolve the closed loop SBO. The surgeon utilized a minimally-invasive approach.
A laparoscopic lysis of adhesions may be contraindicated in patients who have perforated bowel, evidence of severe intra-abdominal sepsis, extensive abdominal distention, and those who have a high probability of diffuse and tangled adhesions.16
The case in focus pertains to a 59-year-old woman with a closed loop SBO with continued and worsening symptoms of nausea, emesis, and obstipation. Given the findings of dilated loops of bowel with air fluid levels and two transition points on imaging, suspicion for a closed loop SBO was raised indicating need for operative management. The patient underwent a laparoscopic approach, and lysis of adhesions was performed. The point of transition was identified. There was no evidence of bowel ischemia or necrosis; therefore, no enterectomy was performed. On postoperative day one, the NG tube was removed and the patient was started on a clear liquid diet, which she tolerated well. Her diet was advanced as tolerated on postoperative day two, and she was subsequently discharged home without services needed.
This case is particularly noteworthy given the patient's prior history of abdominal radiation and history of abdominal surgeries including an open appendectomy and a prior lysis of adhesions along with persistent SBOs. All of these are associated with increased risks of developing adhesions. Similarly, the innovative minimally-invasive techniques showcased in this video demonstrate valuable contributions to the field in understanding the treatment for such conditions. The procedural insights presented therein are instrumental in enhancing the efficacy of medical interventions.
Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, in particular for a closed loop SBO, is typically carried out utilizing an evidence-based distal-to-proximal running of the bowel technique with minimized manipulation of the obstructed loop of bowel.17 This approach starts with identifying the cecum and working up the distal ileal loop towards the transition point and was the approach taken in this case. Release of the adhesion may be done utilizing a laparoscopic scissor or a laparoscopic energy device. Techniques utilized are largely based on surgeon experience and preference.
While lysis of adhesions may be performed open, standard practice today opts towards the more minimally-invasive approach. Patient positioning and port placement were both taken under consideration to ensure proper and maximal access and visualization of anatomy. The patient was placed in a supine position with the left arm tucked. A Veress needle was used to obtain pneumoperitoneum by being placed in the left upper abdomen at Palmer’s point. Once adequate pneumoperitoneum was achieved, a 5-mm trocar was placed at the Veress needle site. Three additional 5-mm ports were placed: one in the right upper abdomen, one in the left lower abdomen, and one slightly-off midline in the epigastric region. The patient was positioned in Trendelenburg position to identify the cecum and terminal ileum, and the bowel was examined distal-to-proximal until the transition point was identified. An adhesive band was identified causing the bowel obstruction with obvious proximal bowel dilation and distally decompressed bowel loops. Adhesiolysis was performed to release the adhesion using a laparoscopic energy device. The remainder of the bowel was evaluated—no other transition points were identified. Bowel viability was assessed and all appeared viable without evidence of ischemia or necrosis.
While the first documented laparoscopic adhesiolysis was performed in 1933 by Carl Fervers, open surgery was the standard practice for such processes prior to the late 1980s.18 Laparoscopic procedures revolutionized in 1986 following the advent of video computer chips that allowed for on screen monitor relaying of graphics.19 Surgical practices have begun to shift from open towards minimally invasive where possible because of the reduction in their associated morbidities; for example, laparoscopic compared to open surgery carries a reduced risk of complications, reduced risk of new adhesion formation in abdominal surgery, improved recovery length, and reduced length of hospital stay.
Approximately 65–75% of SBOs are due to peritoneal adhesions and accounts for nearly $2.3 billion in medical expenses annually in the United States.20 Future research should continue to explore techniques that reduce associated known morbidities such as adhesion cause-effect patterns, standardization of protocols for diagnosing and managing SBOs, and techniques for early identification of closed loop SBOs. Current advancements include robotic assisted laparoscopic adhesiolysis and single-incision laparoscopic lysis of adhesions.21 A systematic review found that compared to laparoscopic procedures, overall, robotic surgery had a lower rate of unplanned conversions to open surgery.22 Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, especially for a closed loop SBO remains the standard practice today. This is evidenced in the efficient time spent in this case (26 minutes) as well as the reduction in perioperative and postoperative morbidities.
Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions was performed using Olympus laparoscopic tools including laparoscopic grasping forceps. The surgical field was visualized by an Olympus high-resolution video endoscopy system including two high-resolution color monitors. Energy device used was Ethicon Laparoscopic Harmonic ACE+ Shears.
Nothing to disclose.
Citations
- Jackson P, Vigiola Cruz MV. Intestinal obstruction: evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician. 2018 Sep 15;98(6):362-367.
- Markogiannakis H, Messaris E, Dardamanis D, et al. Acute mechanical bowel obstruction: clinical presentation, etiology, management and outcome. World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jan 21;13(3):432-7. doi:10.3748/wjg.v13.i3.432.
- Bordeianou L, Yeh DD. Management of Small Bowel Obstruction in Adults. UpToDate. Accessed January 8, 2022.
- Sebastian-Valverde E, Poves I, Membrilla-Fernández E, Pons-Fragero MJ, Grande L. The role of the laparoscopic approach in the surgical management of acute adhesive small bowel obstruction. BMC Surgery. 2019;19(1):40. doi:10.1186/s12893-019-0504-x.
- Flasar MH, Goldberg E. Acute abdominal pain. Med Clin North Am. 2006 May;90(3):481-503. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2005.11.005.
- Chick JF, Mandell JC, Mullen KM, Khurana B. Classic signs of closed loop bowel obstruction. Intern Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;8(3):263-4. doi:10.1007/s11739-012-0897-3.
- Rondenet C, Millet I, Corno L, et al. CT diagnosis of closed loop bowel obstruction mechanism is not sufficient to indicate emergent surgery. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(2):1105-1112. doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06413-3.
- Duda JB, Bhatt S, Dogra VS. Utility of CT whirl sign in guiding management of small-bowel obstruction. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(3):743-747. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.3386.
- Wahl WL, Wong SL, Sonnenday CJ, et al. Implementation of a small bowel obstruction guideline improves hospital efficiency. Surgery. 2012;152(4):626-634. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2012.07.026.
- Elsayes KM, Menias CO, Smullen TL, Platt JF. Closed-loop small-bowel obstruction: diagnostic patterns by multidetector computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(5):697-701. doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e318031f516.
- Foster NM, McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Ko CY. Small bowel obstruction: a population-based appraisal. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(2):170-176. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.04.020.
- Balthazar EJ, Birnbaum BA, Megibow AJ, Gordon RB, Whelan CA, Hulnick DH. Closed-loop and strangulating intestinal obstruction: CT signs. Radiology. 1992;185(3):769-775. doi:10.1148/radiology.185.3.1438761.
- Rubesin SE, Gore RM. Chapter 50 - Small Bowel Obstruction. In: Gore RM, Levine MS, eds. Textbook of Gastrointestinal Radiology (Third Edition). W.B. Saunders; 2008:871-899. doi:10.1016/B978-1-4160-2332-6.50055-5.
- Chen SC, Yen ZS, Lee CC, et al. Nonsurgical management of partial adhesive small-bowel obstruction with oral therapy: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2005;173(10):1165-1169. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041315.
- Mbengue A, Ndiaye A, Soko TO, et al. Closed loop obstruction: pictorial essay. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(2):213-220. doi:10.1016/j.diii.2013.10.011.
- van Loevezijn AA, Smithuis RHM, van den Bremer J. Gastrografin als prognostisch en therapeutisch medium [Gastrografin as a prognostic and therapeutic medium; use for small bowel obstruction, but not for closed loop obstruction]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2018;162:D2408. Published 2018 May 4.
- Di Saverio S, Birindelli A, Broek RT, Davies JR, Mandrioli M, Sallinen V. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: not for all patients, not for all surgeons, not in all centres. Updates Surg. 2018;70(4):557-561. doi:10.1007/s13304-018-0534-4.
- Alkatout I, Mechler U, Mettler L, et al. The development of laparoscopy-a historical overview. Front Surg. 2021;8:799442. 2021 Dec 15;8:799442. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2021.799442.
- Spaner SJ, Warnock GL. A brief history of endoscopy, laparoscopy, and laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1997;7(6):369-373. doi:10.1089/lap.1997.7.369.
- Edwards MK, Kuppler CS, Croft CA, Eason-Bates HM. Adhesive closed-loop small bowel obstruction. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2018;2(1):31-34. doi:10.5811/cpcem.2017.10.35927.
- Pulliam K, Grisotti G, Tiao G. Single incision laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. J Ped Surg Case Rep. 2021;74:102060. doi:10.1016/j.epsc.2021.102060.
- Milone M, Manigrasso M, Anoldo P, et al. The role of robotic visceral surgery in patients with adhesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2022;12(2):307. doi:10.3390/jpm12020307.
Cite this article
Refuerzo J, Cherng NB. Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions for closed loop small bowel obstruction. J Med Insight. 2024;2024(465). doi:10.24296/jomi/465.
Procedure Outline
Table of Contents
- Running the Bowel to Identify Obstruction Transition Point
- Additional Trocar Placement
- Aspiration of Free Fluid
Transcription
CHAPTER 1
Hello, my name is Nicole Cherng. I'm a general surgeon at UMass Memorial Hospital in Worcester, Massachusetts. My specialty is minimally invasive surgery as well as bariatric surgery. Here I'm going to be presenting a case that came in while I was on call. This is a 49-year-old woman who presented with a progressive history, three day history, of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. She presented to our emergency room and was seen by our surgical team as well as the emergency department. There she was found to be hemodynamically stable with a three day history of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. She underwent basic blood work which was fairly unremarkable as well as the CT of the abdomen pelvis. Her surgical history is significant for an open appendectomy when she was younger as well as a previous diagnostic laparoscopy and lysis of adhesion for a prior small bowel obstruction. Her history is also notable for cervical cancer in which she underwent chemoradiation. The CT of the abdomen pelvis did show a dilated stomach as well as multiple loops of dilated small bowel. There is also free fluid within the abdomen. She was also found to have two transition points within the small bowel that was fairly concerning for a closed loop bowel obstruction. There's also some mesenteric edema, so given these findings, a nasogastric tube was placed for decompression. She had some relief from that and she had almost a liter that came out immediately. However, given the CT scan findings, I elected to take her for an emergent diagnostic laparoscopy. She was counseled that there is a possibility that she would have to undergo potentially a laparotomy if she was not able to tolerate general anesthesia or if we could not find the transition point as well as the potential of a bowel resection if there was evidence of any small bowel ischemia or necrosis. Particular things going into the surgery, we wanna make sure that we have a good gastric decompression with the nasogastric tube in order to have a safe induction of general anesthesia. This also allows us to move ahead with laparoscopy if we have more working room inside of the abdomen. Also, given that she may have a longer surgery, she also had a Foley catheter placed to monitor her I's and O's. Particular things for this surgery I would say that are important, are patient positioning. On the CT scan we saw that both transition points were in the right lower quadrant, so we made sure to tent the left arm as we suspected that that's where both surgeon and assistant would be standing. She would also need to be placed in Trendelenburg to identify the area. And then I think the other thing is to be flexible with your part placement. You can always add more ports and as you really wanna try to triangulate to the area of interest, but you don't always necessarily know. You can give your best guess based off the CAT scan, but I do think you need to be flexible when you're in the operating room.
CHAPTER 2
So here you see immediately that there are very dilated distended loops of small bowel. You also see that there's acidic serous fluid within the abdomen. Here we're being very gentle using laparoscopic bowel graspers, being sure to really try to grab the entirety of the small bowel, not taking like little bites because of how distended it is. The patient is now being positioned in Trendelenburg with the left side down with our focus to get to the right lower quadrant. A good starting point is often to find the ileocecal valve and then the ligament of Treves so that we can find distal small bowel and run that proximally. Even with positioning though, you can see dilated loops of small bowel that are kind of flopping in the way. And as we try to mobilize these off of the right lower quadrant into the upper abdomen, you can see that there's some tension. The tension that we feel is more based off of haptic feedback and so we know that as we're trying to pull it, it's not coming easily and it's not something that I or the resident to kind of push through. It usually tells us that there's something that's holding it back. So as we kind of trace the loop of bowel more visually we can see that there is a point of obstruction.
And so we know that there's obstruction. However, we really can't visualize it even with further positioning. So at this point, I elected to place an additional 5-mm trocar to help with retraction such that the active surgeon can then have two working hands, a left and the right hand to really find the point of obstruction. So here we place an additional 5-mm trocar within the upper abdomen under direct visualization.
CHAPTER 3
I set up the assist hand to really hold back this dilated loop of bowel. And now I can see that there's clearly a band that's tethering the loop of bowel that's causing a point of obstruction. It is compressing two loops of bowel, and this is consistent with the CT scan findings that we had two transition points. So this is a very classic traditional closed loop bowel obstruction. There are two transition points and we have dilated loops of bowel both proximal and also the loop of bowel between the two transition points, and decompressed distal loops of small bowel. So another note is that we can tell immediately that we don't have any evidence of bowel ischemia or a necrosis. The ascites that's within the abdomen is very serous and straw colored, very benign looking. There's no bilious or purulent or even feculent fluid.
CHAPTER 4
I elected to use an energy device. I could have used monopolar energy but I felt that just given the proximity to the small bowel, I was worried about a thermal spread or you know, iatrogenic injury. So I used here a laparoscopic Enseal. A Harmonic or a LigaSure would've been fine as well, but some sort of energy device to take down this band and also minimize thermal spread to the small bowel that's so proximal to it. So now that the adhesive band has been lysed, I can now mobilize the loops of small bowel. And here I find one loop that was being compressed by the band. I then can also easily identify the second loop that was being compressed by the band. They're now fairly free and much more easy for me to mobilize.
CHAPTER 5
So at this point in the case, with the point of obstruction identified and also resolved, there are two important things that I'm looking at. One is now running the entirety of the small bowel if possible. So here I can easily identify that this is clearly terminal ileum that's entering the cecum. And so now I'm trying to find the distal small bowel, and so I begin to run that proximally. The second thing is now to also look at the bowel viability. And so while on first inspection I didn't see anything obvious, it is important to look at the entirety of the small bowel to make sure that it is all completely viable as well as there's no other points of obstruction either. So here, the terminal ileum and the distal ileum do appear to be a bit tethered down to the right lower quadrant. This isn't surprising given the patient has had an open appendectomy. But none of it looks to be another area of obstruction. And as I continue to run the small bowel proximally, the loops become more mobile and free. And here you can tell that there's a loop that seems to be diving down and it does feel more difficult to bring up. And so you see there, that's where the band was. And this loop is a bit twisted upon itself, but with some retraction we are able to untwist it, and it does become free. So here as we run the small bowel more proximally, it becomes evident that there's another loop that's actually quite difficult for us to bring up. And it should be fairly free. So given how difficult it is, it raises concern that there's another band. And we do see one that is fairly deep. So once again, we use the additional hand to help with retraction or in order for us to find the additional band that needs to be released. So now with that band released, you can tell that that loop is much more mobile. And we can continue to run the small bowel distally to proximally. When the loops of bowel are this distended and fluid-filled, they are quite heavy and so it is critical to use both hands when trying to lift the bowel free. It is critical at this point to use two hands to really lift the small bowel. The weight of the small bowel can make it that it is more prone to iatrogenic injury or serosal tears. So, it's important to do full big bites with laparoscopic graspers and oftentimes acknowledge that it's the weight of the small bowel that's making it difficult and we have to work around that. And so you can see here these loops are quite fluid-filled as we move more proximally. But as we gently kind of brush other loops of small bowel off of it, we can easily visualize it, identify that there is no level of ischemia as well as no further obstruction points, and then continue to run the small bowel safely, proximally. As we continue to walk the small bowel distally to proximally, we also need to be aware of our positioning. As said earlier, we started the patient in Trendelenberg in order to visualize the right lower quadrant, and now as we walk the bowel proximally, we also now also need to move the patient into either supine or reverse Trendelenberg in order to adequately see the small bowel. Here we're going based off of, you know, visualization in order to see the small bowel and clearly see that there isn't any further areas of obstruction. We can also see that it's clearly viable. It's nice and pink, no level of ischemia or necrosis. Now within the patient's left side of the abdomen, we see the loop of very dilated small bowel, which is likely somewhere in the jejunum and it looks a little bit stuck there. And we suspect that it could just be, you know, benign adhesions from either prior surgeries or perhaps she had some other infectious process and then these adhesions were formed. It is important to delineate if these adhesions are causing obstruction or not, and also to determine just how aggressive to get in lysing them. Given that they're compressing the small bowel just slightly and we really can't visualize here in the left upper quadrant - they are fairly flimsy. So we use our energy device, our laparoscopic Enseal to lyse these omental adhesions off of the lateral abdominal wall. And now we can safely visualize and easily mobilize these dilated loops, and they're clearly proximal. And at this point, we've run the majority of the small bowel.
CHAPTER 6
We feel that three transition points were identified and all released by adhesive bands from the patient's prior surgeries. There's no level of ischemia or necrosis, and no bowel section needed to be performed. All the fluid within the abdomen was fairly acidic and straw-colored, so we did not leave a drain. We did leave the nasogastric tube in place for this patient just given the distension of the small bowels, and we felt that this would help continue to decompress her as she opened up clinically.
CHAPTER 7
I think for this surgery it actually went very well. We were able to stay laparoscopic as you can see. She was very fortunate that we had no signs of bowel ischemia or necrosis, so we could not only stay laparoscopic, but I think it shows that time from diagnosis to intervention is really vital for these patients. Once we were able to identify our transition point where we saw a clear adhesive band, in order to adequately visualize this, we did place an additional 5-mm port to have better retraction in order to really lyse this band without injuring the rest of the bowel. The other point to note is also how dilated the loops of the small bowel are. And so, that makes laparoscopy maybe slightly more difficult. But I think the key is just to be very careful with your instruments, being really mindful of where they are in the body as you're coming in and out of your ports. And when you're working the small bowel, not to have too much tension or pulling on it, as they are so fluid-filled and more fragile.