Search

Background: Inadvertent bowel injury during adhesiolysis is a major cause of increased morbidity and mortality following abdominal surgery. Identification of risk factors predicting this complication would guide preoperative counselling and surgical decision-making. The aim of this study was to identify predictive preoperative factors for inadvertent bowel injury occurring during adhesiolysis., Methods: All patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery between June 2008 and June 2010 were evaluated prospectively as part of the LAPAD study. Data on adhesiolysis and inadvertent organ injury were gathered by direct observation during operation. Univariable logistic regression was used to investigate factors that increased the risk of inadvertent bowel injury. Independent predictors of bowel injury were identified using multivariable logistic regression and used to create a clinical nomogram., Results: Of 715 patients eligible for analysis, 48 (6.7 per cent) had inadvertent bowel injuries. In 42 patients the defect was detected during operation and in nine at a later time (3 patients had both). Bowel resection was required for almost two-thirds of the enterotomies. The number of previous laparotomies, anatomical site of the operation, presence of bowel fistula and laparotomy via a pre-existing median scar were independent predictors of bowel injury. A clinical scoring system was constructed using a nomogram incorporating these risk factors; this had a predictive discrimination, measured as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, of 0.85., Conclusion: A nomogram based on four independent factors predicted the risk of inadvertent bowel injury., Registration Number: NCT01236625 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)., (© 2014 BJS Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The operative report contains critical information for patient care, serves an educational purpose and is an important source for surgical research. Recent studies demonstrate that operative reports are unstructured and lack vital components. The accuracy of the operative notes has never been assessed. The aim of this study was to analyse the accuracy of operative reports by comparing notes with intraoperative observer-derived findings regarding adhesions and adhesiolysis-related complications., Methods: The incidence of adhesions and adhesiolysis-induced injury were scored from the reports by a researcher blinded to operative findings obtained prospectively by direct observation. In addition, factors influencing correct reporting were analysed, including sex, surgical experience, delay in dictation, and the gradual introduction of a new report template with a focus on describing operative findings rather than actions taken., Results: A total of 755 consecutive operative reports were analysed. Sensitivity and specificity for the incidence of adhesions was 85·1 and 72·4 per cent respectively. Six of 43 inadvertent enterotomies, and 17 of 48 other organ injuries, had not been reported. All missed bowel injuries were found in reports written in the old template. A median delay in dictating of 3 (range 1-226) working days was found for 56 reports (7·4 per cent). Documentation of inadvertent enterotomies was missing more often in delayed reports (2 of 3 versus 4 of 40 reports dictated with no delay; P = 0·022)., Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of operative reports noting adhesions and adhesiolysis were low. One in seven enterotomies was not reported. Effort should be put into teaching timely, meaningful, structured and accurate reporting of surgical procedures., (Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)