Non‐operative Management of Small Bowel Obstruction in Patients with No Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the contemporary management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) often includes a trial of non-operative management (NOM), surgical dogma dictates urgent operative exploration in patients without previous abdominal surgery. This dogma has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting most obstructions in this population are adhesive in nature. The objectives of this review were to evaluate the feasibility of NOM in patients with SBO and no history of previous abdominal surgery, to examine the etiologies of SBO in this population, and to explore the rate of adverse events seen following NOM. Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to September 24, 2019. Articles reporting on NOM for SBO in patients without previous abdominal surgery and without clinical or radiographic features necessitating an emergent operation were included. Data were combined to obtain a pooled proportion of patients discharged without operation following a trial of NOM. 6 studies reporting on a total of 272 patients were included. The pooled proportion of patients discharged following NOM was 49.5% (95% CI 23.7-75.3%). Adhesions were found to be the predominant cause of obstruction. NOM did not appear to increase short-term complications. Most SBOs in patients without previous abdominal surgery are adhesive in nature and many patients can be discharged from hospital without surgery. While the short-term outcomes of NOM are acceptable, future studies are needed to address the long-term outcomes and safety of NOM as a treatment strategy for SBO in patients without previous abdominal surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".