Peculiarities of laparoscopic interventions in peritoneal adhesions and approaches of their prevention and treatment

Written by Lucevich O.E., Gallyamov E.A., Popov S.V., Biktimirov R.G., Sanzharov А.Е., Presnov K.S., Orlov I.N., Kochkin A.D., Sergeev V.P., Novikov A.B., Biktimirov T.R., Gallyamova C.V., Nasirova N.I., Aminova L.N., Pavlova S.А., Mikhaylikov T.G., Kharchuk А.V., Y

  UDK: 616.381-008.6-072.1 | Pages: 69–73 | Full text PDF | Open PDF 

Objective. Summarized 10-year (2005–2015) experience in the treatment of various forms of adhesive disease of the peritoneum. Methods. Conducted a retrospective and prospective, non-randomized controlled study of 279 cases of adhesive disease, using traditional surgical and laparoscopic techniques. On a material of 19,711 cases of laparoscopic surgery compared to abdominal surgery, urology and gynecology in the presence and absence of adhesions in the abdominal cavity. Results. Determined significant advantages of laparoscopic surgery: reduction in the duration of intervention, intraoperative blood loss, pain intensity, frequency of early adhesive intestinal obstruction, the term hospital treatment and the frequency of relapses. Any significant difference to the same criteria in the presence and absence of adhesions with laparoscopic procedures in the abdominal cavity is not registered. Conclusions. Surgical treatment of adhesive disease and its complications of the laparoscopic approach has significant advantages over the open surgery. Having certain manual skills and technical equipment performing total adhesiolysis is possible only using laparoscopic method. Adhesive process stage 3–4 is not a contraindication for laparoscopic correction of abdominal and retroperitoneal pathology. Moreover, in order to prevent recurrence of adhesions laparoscopic approach should be seen as a priority.

Links to authors:

O.E. Lucevich1, E.A. Gallyamov1, S.V. Popov2, R.G. Biktimirov3, А.Е. Sanzharov4, K.S. Presnov5, I.N. Orlov2, A.D. Kochkin6, V.P. Sergeev7, A.B. Novikov8, T.R. Biktimirov3, C.V. Gallyamova8, N.I. Nasirova9, L.N. Aminova8, S.А. Pavlova5, T.G. Mikhaylikov9, А.V. Kharchuk9, S.A. Yerin10
1 Moscow State Medico-Stomatology University in the name of A.I. Evdokimov (20/1 Delegatskaya St. Moscow 127473 Russian Federation),
2 City Clinical Hospital St. Luke (45 Chugunnaja St. Saint Petersburg 194044 Russian Federation),
3 Federal Clinical Center of High Medical Technologies (Novogorsk microdistrict of Khimki, Moscow region 141435 Russian Federation),
4 City Clinical Hospital No. 40 (189 Volgogradskaja St. Yekaterinburg 620102 Russian Federation),
5 Diversified Medical Center of Bank of Russia (66 Sevastopol Ave. Moscow 117593 Russian Federation),
6 Road Clinical Hospital Art. Gorky of JSC Russian Railways (8b Tallinskaja St. Nizhny Novgorod 603033 Russian Federation),
7 Moscow City Oncology Hospital No. 62 (27 Istra town, Krasnogorsk district, Moscow region 143423 Russian Federation),
8 Clinical Hospital MEDSI (5 2nd Botkinsky Passage, Moscow 125284 Russian Federation),
9 Central Clinical Hospital of Civil Aviation (7 Ivankovskoe Hwy. Moscow 125367 Russian Federation),
10 City Clinical Hospital No. 50 (21 Vucetic St. Moscow 127206 Russian Federation)

1. Bezhenar V.F., Tsypurdeeva A.A., Baylyuk E.N. Adhesive pelvic disease in gynecologic patients: from pathogenesis to prevention // Gynecologic Oncology. 2014. No. 4. P. 68–74.
2. Gorelik P.V., Makshanov I.Ya. Adhesive disease. Adhesive intestinal obstruction. The pathogenesis, diagnosis, tactics, treatment, prevention: best practices. Grodno, 2000. 39 p.
3. Matveev N.L., Arutyunyan D.Yu., Digaeva M.A. The results of the application of 4% icodextrin solution for the prevention of adhesions after surgical and gynecological operations // Endoscopic Surgery. 2008. No. 3. P. 45–54.
4. Mikhin I.V., Beburishvili A.G., Gushul A.V. Treatment of painful forms of abdominal adhesive disease with laparoscopic method // Bulletin of the Volgograd Scientific Center RAMS. 2010. No. 2. P. 40–44.
5. Myasnikov A.D., Lipatov V.A. On modern principles of prevention of postoperative adhesions of the abdominal cavity // Modern approaches of science and practice in surgery: materials of the interregional conference dedicated to the 70th anniversary of V.I. Bulynin. Voronezh, 2002. P. 154–157.
6. Nazarenko V.A., Durinyan E.R., Perminova S.G. Current approaches to diagnosis and treatment of infertility in women // Gynecology. 2004. Vol. 6, No. 6. P. 27–31.
7. Podzolkova N.M., Glazkova O.L. Symptom, syndrome, diagnosis. М.: GEOTAR-Media, 2005. 520 p.
8. Deffieux X., Ballester M., Collinet P. [et al.]. Risks associated with laparoscopic entry: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians // Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2011. Vol. 158, No. 2. P. 159–166.
9. Johnson N.P., Watson A. Cochrane review: post-operative procedures for improving fertility following pelvic reproductive surgery // Hum. Reprod. Update. 2000. Vol. 6, No. 3. P. 259–267.
10. Nitin P.Gh., Sanchita D.Gh. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of pelvic peritoneal adhesions: What radiologists need to know? // Indian J. Radiol. Imaging. 2014. Vol. 24, No. 2. P. 149–155.
11. Piccolboni D., Ciccone F., Settembre A. High resolution ultrasound for pre-operative detection of intraperitoneal adhesions: An invaluable diagnostic tool for the general and laparoscopic surgeon // Journal of Ultrasound. 2009. Vol. 12, No. 4. P. 148–150.
12. Studer P., Mennicke M., Inderbitzin D. Adhesions and abdominal pain // Ther. Umsch. 2011. Vol. 68, No. 8. P. 468–472.
13. Vernon A.H., Hunter J.G. Maingot's abdominal operations // Fundamental soflaparoscopic surgery. 11th ed. McGraw Hill Co., 2007. P. 1099–1112.


Founded in 1997  |  Editions in a year: 4, Articles in one issue: 30 |  ISSN of print version: 1609-1175  |  Ind.: 18410 (Agency "Rospechat’")  |  Edition: 1000 c.