Intra-abdominal adhesion formation: Does surgical approach matter? Questionnaire survey of South Asian surgeons and literature review
Aim: The impact of postsurgical intra‐abdominal adhesions, which represent a considerable burden for patients and health services, is often underestimated. Various factors influence adhesion formation, including the surgical approach. This study aimed to further understand the condition by investig...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research 2011-10, Vol.37 (10), p.1382-1390 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1390 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 1382 |
container_title | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Hackethal, Andreas Sick, Claudia Szalay, Gabor Puntambekar, Shailesh Joseph, Kurian Langde, Swapnil Oehmke, Frank Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf Muenstedt, Karsten |
description | Aim: The impact of postsurgical intra‐abdominal adhesions, which represent a considerable burden for patients and health services, is often underestimated. Various factors influence adhesion formation, including the surgical approach. This study aimed to further understand the condition by investigating surgeons' perceptions of adhesion formation, particularly differences after laparoscopic and open surgery, and by performing a selective literature review.
Materials and Methods: South Asian surgeons attending endoscopy symposia in India and in Germany completed Likert‐scale‐based questionnaires on awareness of adhesion formation and associated consequences in gynecology. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for articles published in 2000–2010 comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy in relation to adhesion formation. The results of the questionnaire study were then considered in view of findings from this review.
Results: In total, 43.1% (97/225) of questionnaires were completed. Respondents considered that laparoscopy caused fewer adhesions than laparotomy for all gynecological procedures. Although they believed their knowledge of adhesion formation was satisfactory, they widely underestimated the risk, giving estimated rates of 12.5% after laparoscopy and 36.3% after laparotomy. Twenty‐eight studies were identified in the review. Most concluded that laparoscopy was less likely to cause adhesions than laparotomy but further statistical analysis was precluded because so many different definitions and classifications of adhesions had been used.
Conclusions: The risk of adhesion formation was widely underestimated in the study group. Both the questionnaire study and the review concluded that laparoscopy results in less adhesion than laparotomy but further statistical comparison necessitates the development of standard definitions and classifications of adhesions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01543.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_900638254</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>900638254</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-4a96022fb8a8e12664713fda59a985b561918741a3868e1921b196ea06ac7a353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkcFu1DAQhi0EomXhFZBvnBI8ceLYSAhVhW5bVa0QII7WJHFYL0m8tZN29wH63nW6Zc_44pHm-8ee_yeEAkshno_rFPK8TFhZiDRjACmDIufp9gU5PjRexprnkEhWiiPyJoQ1Y1AqkK_JUQaFUpLxY_JwMYweE6wa19sBO4rNygTrBto63-MYq0_0qzOBhsn_sfVMbDbeYb2isT0a_4V-n0yYwQGtNzN3Z3bUtfSHm8YVPQkWhye1cUOgODS0s1GH4xRpb-6suX9LXrXYBfPu-V6QX2fffp6eJ1c3y4vTk6ukzjnjSY5KsCxrK4nSQCZEXgJvGywUKllUhYC4XpkDcikioDKoQAmDTGBdIi_4gnzYz40b3M6_1r0Ntek6HIybglaMCS6z6OWCyD1ZexeCN63eeNuj32lges5Ar_VstZ6t1nMG-ikDvY3S98-PTFVvmoPwn-kR-LwH7m1ndv89WF_eLOcq6pO93obRbA969H-1KHlZ6N_XS83PxfVZDpe64I-mQaW5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>900638254</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intra-abdominal adhesion formation: Does surgical approach matter? Questionnaire survey of South Asian surgeons and literature review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Hackethal, Andreas ; Sick, Claudia ; Szalay, Gabor ; Puntambekar, Shailesh ; Joseph, Kurian ; Langde, Swapnil ; Oehmke, Frank ; Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf ; Muenstedt, Karsten</creator><creatorcontrib>Hackethal, Andreas ; Sick, Claudia ; Szalay, Gabor ; Puntambekar, Shailesh ; Joseph, Kurian ; Langde, Swapnil ; Oehmke, Frank ; Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf ; Muenstedt, Karsten</creatorcontrib><description>Aim: The impact of postsurgical intra‐abdominal adhesions, which represent a considerable burden for patients and health services, is often underestimated. Various factors influence adhesion formation, including the surgical approach. This study aimed to further understand the condition by investigating surgeons' perceptions of adhesion formation, particularly differences after laparoscopic and open surgery, and by performing a selective literature review.
Materials and Methods: South Asian surgeons attending endoscopy symposia in India and in Germany completed Likert‐scale‐based questionnaires on awareness of adhesion formation and associated consequences in gynecology. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for articles published in 2000–2010 comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy in relation to adhesion formation. The results of the questionnaire study were then considered in view of findings from this review.
Results: In total, 43.1% (97/225) of questionnaires were completed. Respondents considered that laparoscopy caused fewer adhesions than laparotomy for all gynecological procedures. Although they believed their knowledge of adhesion formation was satisfactory, they widely underestimated the risk, giving estimated rates of 12.5% after laparoscopy and 36.3% after laparotomy. Twenty‐eight studies were identified in the review. Most concluded that laparoscopy was less likely to cause adhesions than laparotomy but further statistical analysis was precluded because so many different definitions and classifications of adhesions had been used.
Conclusions: The risk of adhesion formation was widely underestimated in the study group. Both the questionnaire study and the review concluded that laparoscopy results in less adhesion than laparotomy but further statistical comparison necessitates the development of standard definitions and classifications of adhesions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1341-8076</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1447-0756</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01543.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21599803</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melbourne, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><subject>Abdomen - surgery ; adhesion formation ; adhesions ; Female ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Health Care Surveys ; Humans ; India ; laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - adverse effects ; Laparoscopy - methods ; laparotomy ; Laparotomy - adverse effects ; Laparotomy - methods ; postsurgical complication ; surgical approach ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Tissue Adhesions - etiology ; Tissue Adhesions - prevention & control</subject><ispartof>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2011-10, Vol.37 (10), p.1382-1390</ispartof><rights>2011 The Authors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research © 2011 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology</rights><rights>2011 The Authors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research © 2011 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-4a96022fb8a8e12664713fda59a985b561918741a3868e1921b196ea06ac7a353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-4a96022fb8a8e12664713fda59a985b561918741a3868e1921b196ea06ac7a353</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1447-0756.2011.01543.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1447-0756.2011.01543.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21599803$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hackethal, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sick, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szalay, Gabor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puntambekar, Shailesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joseph, Kurian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langde, Swapnil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oehmke, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muenstedt, Karsten</creatorcontrib><title>Intra-abdominal adhesion formation: Does surgical approach matter? Questionnaire survey of South Asian surgeons and literature review</title><title>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research</title><addtitle>J Obstet Gynaecol Res</addtitle><description>Aim: The impact of postsurgical intra‐abdominal adhesions, which represent a considerable burden for patients and health services, is often underestimated. Various factors influence adhesion formation, including the surgical approach. This study aimed to further understand the condition by investigating surgeons' perceptions of adhesion formation, particularly differences after laparoscopic and open surgery, and by performing a selective literature review.
Materials and Methods: South Asian surgeons attending endoscopy symposia in India and in Germany completed Likert‐scale‐based questionnaires on awareness of adhesion formation and associated consequences in gynecology. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for articles published in 2000–2010 comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy in relation to adhesion formation. The results of the questionnaire study were then considered in view of findings from this review.
Results: In total, 43.1% (97/225) of questionnaires were completed. Respondents considered that laparoscopy caused fewer adhesions than laparotomy for all gynecological procedures. Although they believed their knowledge of adhesion formation was satisfactory, they widely underestimated the risk, giving estimated rates of 12.5% after laparoscopy and 36.3% after laparotomy. Twenty‐eight studies were identified in the review. Most concluded that laparoscopy was less likely to cause adhesions than laparotomy but further statistical analysis was precluded because so many different definitions and classifications of adhesions had been used.
Conclusions: The risk of adhesion formation was widely underestimated in the study group. Both the questionnaire study and the review concluded that laparoscopy results in less adhesion than laparotomy but further statistical comparison necessitates the development of standard definitions and classifications of adhesions.</description><subject>Abdomen - surgery</subject><subject>adhesion formation</subject><subject>adhesions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Health Care Surveys</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>India</subject><subject>laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>laparotomy</subject><subject>Laparotomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Laparotomy - methods</subject><subject>postsurgical complication</subject><subject>surgical approach</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - prevention & control</subject><issn>1341-8076</issn><issn>1447-0756</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkcFu1DAQhi0EomXhFZBvnBI8ceLYSAhVhW5bVa0QII7WJHFYL0m8tZN29wH63nW6Zc_44pHm-8ee_yeEAkshno_rFPK8TFhZiDRjACmDIufp9gU5PjRexprnkEhWiiPyJoQ1Y1AqkK_JUQaFUpLxY_JwMYweE6wa19sBO4rNygTrBto63-MYq0_0qzOBhsn_sfVMbDbeYb2isT0a_4V-n0yYwQGtNzN3Z3bUtfSHm8YVPQkWhye1cUOgODS0s1GH4xRpb-6suX9LXrXYBfPu-V6QX2fffp6eJ1c3y4vTk6ukzjnjSY5KsCxrK4nSQCZEXgJvGywUKllUhYC4XpkDcikioDKoQAmDTGBdIi_4gnzYz40b3M6_1r0Ntek6HIybglaMCS6z6OWCyD1ZexeCN63eeNuj32lges5Ar_VstZ6t1nMG-ikDvY3S98-PTFVvmoPwn-kR-LwH7m1ndv89WF_eLOcq6pO93obRbA969H-1KHlZ6N_XS83PxfVZDpe64I-mQaW5</recordid><startdate>201110</startdate><enddate>201110</enddate><creator>Hackethal, Andreas</creator><creator>Sick, Claudia</creator><creator>Szalay, Gabor</creator><creator>Puntambekar, Shailesh</creator><creator>Joseph, Kurian</creator><creator>Langde, Swapnil</creator><creator>Oehmke, Frank</creator><creator>Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf</creator><creator>Muenstedt, Karsten</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Asia</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201110</creationdate><title>Intra-abdominal adhesion formation: Does surgical approach matter? Questionnaire survey of South Asian surgeons and literature review</title><author>Hackethal, Andreas ; Sick, Claudia ; Szalay, Gabor ; Puntambekar, Shailesh ; Joseph, Kurian ; Langde, Swapnil ; Oehmke, Frank ; Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf ; Muenstedt, Karsten</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-4a96022fb8a8e12664713fda59a985b561918741a3868e1921b196ea06ac7a353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Abdomen - surgery</topic><topic>adhesion formation</topic><topic>adhesions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Health Care Surveys</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>India</topic><topic>laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>laparotomy</topic><topic>Laparotomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Laparotomy - methods</topic><topic>postsurgical complication</topic><topic>surgical approach</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - prevention & control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hackethal, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sick, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szalay, Gabor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puntambekar, Shailesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joseph, Kurian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langde, Swapnil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oehmke, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muenstedt, Karsten</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hackethal, Andreas</au><au>Sick, Claudia</au><au>Szalay, Gabor</au><au>Puntambekar, Shailesh</au><au>Joseph, Kurian</au><au>Langde, Swapnil</au><au>Oehmke, Frank</au><au>Tinneberg, Hans-Rudolf</au><au>Muenstedt, Karsten</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intra-abdominal adhesion formation: Does surgical approach matter? Questionnaire survey of South Asian surgeons and literature review</atitle><jtitle>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research</jtitle><addtitle>J Obstet Gynaecol Res</addtitle><date>2011-10</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1382</spage><epage>1390</epage><pages>1382-1390</pages><issn>1341-8076</issn><eissn>1447-0756</eissn><abstract>Aim: The impact of postsurgical intra‐abdominal adhesions, which represent a considerable burden for patients and health services, is often underestimated. Various factors influence adhesion formation, including the surgical approach. This study aimed to further understand the condition by investigating surgeons' perceptions of adhesion formation, particularly differences after laparoscopic and open surgery, and by performing a selective literature review.
Materials and Methods: South Asian surgeons attending endoscopy symposia in India and in Germany completed Likert‐scale‐based questionnaires on awareness of adhesion formation and associated consequences in gynecology. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for articles published in 2000–2010 comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy in relation to adhesion formation. The results of the questionnaire study were then considered in view of findings from this review.
Results: In total, 43.1% (97/225) of questionnaires were completed. Respondents considered that laparoscopy caused fewer adhesions than laparotomy for all gynecological procedures. Although they believed their knowledge of adhesion formation was satisfactory, they widely underestimated the risk, giving estimated rates of 12.5% after laparoscopy and 36.3% after laparotomy. Twenty‐eight studies were identified in the review. Most concluded that laparoscopy was less likely to cause adhesions than laparotomy but further statistical analysis was precluded because so many different definitions and classifications of adhesions had been used.
Conclusions: The risk of adhesion formation was widely underestimated in the study group. Both the questionnaire study and the review concluded that laparoscopy results in less adhesion than laparotomy but further statistical comparison necessitates the development of standard definitions and classifications of adhesions.</abstract><cop>Melbourne, Australia</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Asia</pub><pmid>21599803</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01543.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1341-8076 |
ispartof | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2011-10, Vol.37 (10), p.1382-1390 |
issn | 1341-8076 1447-0756 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_900638254 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Journals |
subjects | Abdomen - surgery adhesion formation adhesions Female Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods Health Care Surveys Humans India laparoscopy Laparoscopy - adverse effects Laparoscopy - methods laparotomy Laparotomy - adverse effects Laparotomy - methods postsurgical complication surgical approach Surveys and Questionnaires Tissue Adhesions - etiology Tissue Adhesions - prevention & control |
title | Intra-abdominal adhesion formation: Does surgical approach matter? Questionnaire survey of South Asian surgeons and literature review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T21%3A05%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Intra-abdominal%20adhesion%20formation:%20Does%20surgical%20approach%20matter?%20Questionnaire%20survey%20of%20South%20Asian%20surgeons%20and%20literature%20review&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology%20research&rft.au=Hackethal,%20Andreas&rft.date=2011-10&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1382&rft.epage=1390&rft.pages=1382-1390&rft.issn=1341-8076&rft.eissn=1447-0756&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01543.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E900638254%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=900638254&rft_id=info:pmid/21599803&rfr_iscdi=true |