In the same years European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) guidelines for the laparoscopic treatment of abdominal emergencies [11] were also published, and three other reviews were realized by Darzi [12], Tsumura [13] and Majewsky [14]. The aim of this paper is to analyse the feasibility

and convenience of the laparoscopic adhesiolysis suggesting the successful predictive factors and the absolute and relative contraindications, which lead to an accurate selection of patients ML323 solubility dmso resulting in a lower postoperative morbidity. Methods We performed a review, considering international literature indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library without any language restrictions, from 1980 to 2007. The literature searches were carried out using the following keywords: “”laparoscopic adhesiolysis”", “”laparoscopic lysis”", “”laparoscopic management”", “”AND small bowel obstruction”", “”AND adhesive bowel obstruction”". Furthermore we analysed other non-indexed sources: records from the congresses of Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC) and Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), records from Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC), Eastern Europe online surgical journals (Chirurgia and Jurnalul de Chirurgie), Spanish online surgical journals (Cirurgia Espanola and Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra), and online specialized journals dedicated to adherential

pathology (Adhesions). Studies including a small number of patients (<5) treated with emergency laparoscopic adhesiolysis or patients treated electively for adherential syndrome were excluded from our review. Results find protocol and discussion This literature research pointed out different studies (Table 1) [6, 15–44] confirming the

main 17DMAG research buy diagnostic role of laparoscopic adhesiolysis. In fact the mentioned studies show that while the feasibility of diagnostic laparoscopy is high (60–100%), that of therapeutic laparoscopy is low (40–88%). Table 1 Laparoscopic management of small bowel obstruction.   Emergency treated patients Achived diagnosis (site and cause of occlusions) Laparotomic conversions Dallemagne [6] 86 100% 23% Strickland [15] 35 60% 37% Ibrahim [16] 25 100% 28% Iorgulescu [17] 6 100% 16,6% Benoist [18] 31 ** 48,4% Wullstein [19] 52 ** 51,9% Chopra [20] 34 ** 32,3% Saudemont [21] 34 100% 50% Kirshtein [22] 44 97% Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II 25% Bailey [23] 55 ** 16,3% Borzellino [24] 40 ** 25% Levard [25] 23 ** 52,1% Parent [26] 30 ** 30% Chèvre [27] 20 ** 35% Suter [28] 71 78% 35,2% Khaikin [29] 31 100% 32% Multicenter F.A.S.R.* [30] 261 ** 37,5% Hoyuela [31] 10 94,4% 0 Navez [32] 54 66% 48,2% Cavaliere [33] 44 91% 23% Meinero [34] 39 97,5% 12,8% Al-Mulhim [35] 9 100% 11,1% Liauw [36] 5 100% 20% Johanet [37] 49 ** 34.7% Zerey [38, 39] 52 100% 16,7% Sciannameo [40] 27 100% 11,1% Chosidow [41] 39 ** 36% Bergamini [42] 13 ** 46,1% El Dahha [43] 13 ** 7,6% Binenbaum [44] 4 ** 50% * F.A.S.R.