Triage by laparoscopy in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma

Laparoscopy for Trauma and the Changes in its Use From 1990 to 2016: A Current Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of stable abdominal trauma patients is still a matter of serious debate and only incomplete data are available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between January 1990 and August 2016.

RESULTS

Overall, 9817 laparoscopies were performed for abdominal trauma; only 26.2% of the cases were converted to a laparotomy. The incidence of therapeutic laparotomies showed a reduction from 69% to 47.5%, whereas the incidence of therapeutic laparoscopies increased from 7.2% to 22.7%.The overall perioperative mortality rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopy group [odds ratio (M-H, random); 95% confidence interval, 0.35 (0.26-0.48)]. The same group showed shorter length of hospital stay [odds ratio (M-H, random); 95% confidence interval, -3.48 (-8.91 to 1.96)].

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows a significant decrease in the use of laparoscopy in trauma patients. Most likely the widespread use of imaging techniques allows a more accurate selection of patients for diagnostic laparoscopy. Infact, a reduction in incidence of nontherapeutic laparotomies is evident in these selected patients undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy. Moreover, the literature reported an increasing trend of therapeutic laparoscopy, demonstrating that it is safe and effective. The small number and poor quality of the studies identified, the retrospective observational nature of the studies (low level of evidence), the high risk of bias, and the high heterogeneity of some outcomes make the applicability of the results of this meta-analysis unclear.

Role of laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Debate remains regarding the optimum role of laparoscopy in the setting of trauma although it can offer advantages over traditional exploratory laparotomy. Laparoscopy can be a screening, diagnostic or therapeutic tool in trauma. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma

METHODS

The PUBMED database was searched with the keywords "Laparoscopy AND Trauma". Additional citation searching and searching of the grey literature was conducted. Relevant studies were chosen on the basis of the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and quality was assessed where appropriate using the Downs and Black checklist

RESULTS

In total, 51 studies were included in the analysis of which only 13 were prospective. In most studies, laparoscopy was used as a screening, diagnostic or therapeutic tool. In total, 2569 patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) for penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT), 1129 (43.95 %) were positive for injury. 13.8 % of those with injury had a therapeutic laparoscopy. In total 33.8 % were converted to laparotomy, 16 % of which were non-therapeutic and 11.5 % of them were negative. 1497 patients were spared a non-therapeutic laparotomy. Overall, 72 patients suffered complications, there were 3 mortalities and 83 missed injuries. Sensitivity ranged from 66.7-100 %, specificity from 33.3-100 % and accuracy from 50-100 %. 23 of the 50 studies reported sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 100 %, including the four most recent studies. In general the quality of the reported studies was poor. When used for cohort studies, the mean Downs and Black checklist score was 13.25 out of a possible total of 28.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, laparoscopy in PAT may have an important role in a selected subgroup of patients, with surgeon expertise also an important factor. Laparoscopy has screening, diagnostic and therapeutic roles, particularly where diaphragm injury is suspected. It is extremely sensitive in determining need for laparotomy but detects hollow visceral injuries less reliably. It has potential as a therapeutic tool in centres with appropriate expertise. The development of specific guidelines or protocols may increase the value of laparoscopy in trauma but this would require more evidence of a higher quality.

The role of laparoscopy in abdominal trauma - review of the literature

The necessity of urgent explorative laparotomy as a standard procedure in the treatment of abdominal penetrating wounds is controversial. Mandatory surgical intervention for penetrating abdominal trauma yields a high rate of negative laparotomies in the absence of visceral injuries. Laparoscopy is an alternative diagnostic procedure inspecting the peritoneum for signs of perforation and excluding significant intra-abdominal injuries. Following current guidelines, diagnostic laparoscopy should be used with caution only in selected cases due to the limited amount of reliable data confirming the effectiveness of such treatment. We present a review of the literature analysing the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in abdominal trauma.

Guidelines for the management of haemodynamically stable patients with stab wounds to the anterior abdomen

Clinical practice guidelines have been shown to improve the delivery of care. Anterior abdominal stab wounds, although uncommon, pose a challenge in both rural and urban trauma care. A multidisciplinary working party was established to assist in the development of evidence-based guidelines to answer three key clinical questions: (i) What is the ideal prehospital management of anterior abdominal stab wounds? (ii) What is the ideal management of anterior abdominal stab wounds in a rural or urban hospital without an on-call surgeon? (iii) What is the ideal emergency management of stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds when surgical service is available? A systematic review, using Cochrane method, was undertaken. The data were graded by level of evidence as outlined by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds should be transported to the hospital without delay. Any interventions deemed necessary in prehospital care should be undertaken en route to hospital. In rural hospitals with no on-call surgeon, local wound exploration (LWE) may be undertaken by a general practitioner if confident in this procedure. Otherwise or in the presence of obvious fascial penetration, such as evisceration, the patient should be transferred to the nearest main trauma service for further management. In urban hospitals the patient with omental or bowel evisceration or generalized peritonitis should undergo urgent exploratory laparotomy. Stable patients may be screened using LWE. Abdominal computed tomography scan and plain radiographs are not indicated. Obese and/or uncooperative patients require a general anaesthetic for laparoscopy. If there is fascial penetration on LWE or peritoneal penetration on laparoscopy, then an urgent laparotomy should be undertaken. The developed evidence-based guidelines for stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds may help minimize unnecessary diagnostic tests and non-therapeutic laparotomy rates.

Computed tomographic scanning and selective laparoscopy in the diagnosis of blunt bowel injury: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

We prospectively evaluated whether computed tomographic (CT) scanning and selective laparoscopy (LP) for the diagnosis of blunt bowel injury (BBI) could prevent nontherapeutic laparotomy and delayed diagnosis.

METHODS

Between April 1994 and May 2002, hemodynamically stable patients suspected of having BBI were enrolled in this study. Patients with hemodynamic instability or solid organ injuries with hemoperitoneum were excluded. All patients underwent a physical examination and contrast CT scanning at admission and once again approximately 12 hours (range, 6-24 hours) after admission. LP was performed under general anesthesia in patients who had local peritoneal signs and indirect CT signs (bowel thickening or isolated intraperitoneal fluid) or in whom abdominal pain or tenderness increased or intraperitoneal fluid increased on the repeat CT scan. The indications for a celiotomy were diffuse peritonitis, pneumoperitoneum on the abdominal CT scan, or bowel perforation visible on LP.

RESULTS

During the study period, 399 of 1,074 patients admitted for blunt torso injuries were enrolled in this study. Eleven patients underwent emergency celiotomy and 11 underwent LP immediately after admission to the emergency department. One nontherapeutic laparotomy was performed among the patients who underwent celiotomy. The LPs revealed seven bowel perforations and one mesenteric laceration. After a repeat CT scan, three and seven of the patients underwent laparotomy and LP, respectively. Four bowel perforations were found by LP. The remaining 198 patients were treated conservatively, and no complications related to a delayed BBI diagnosis occurred.

CONCLUSION

CT scanning and selective LP can prevent nontherapeutic laparotomy and delayed diagnosis in patients with suspected BBI.

Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for stab wounds of the anterior abdomen

BACKGROUND

At present, laparoscopy is used mainly as a diagnostic tool in patients with abdominal stab wounds.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-two hemodynamically stable patients with isolated stab wounds of the anterior abdomen, thought to be penetrating, were prospectively selected to undergo treatment via a laparoscopic approach. When possible, parenchymal wounds were coagulated or sealed, and wounds to the intestines were sutured or stapled.

RESULTS

The results of laparoscopy were negative in 6 (18.8%) of the cases: nonpenetrating wounds in 4 cases and nonsignificant organ injury in 2 cases. A hemoperitoneum was identified in 13 (40.6%) of the cases, and significant organ injuries in 26 (81.3%) of the cases: stomach, 2; small bowel, 5; colon, 2; pancreas, 1; vascular injuries, 4; liver, 5; mesentery, 9. Laparoscopy was therapeutic in 20 (62.3%) of the cases. Conversion to open surgery was required in 6 (18.8%) of the cases. No injuries were missed, and no mortality occurred. Postoperative complications developed in 2 (6.2%) of the cases. The mean hospital stay was 4 days, with no late complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy can avoid a number of unnecessary laparotomies and can treat most of the lesions found in hemodynamically stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds.

The Role of Laparoscopy in Penetrating Abdominal Stab Wounds

The role of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in abdominal stab wounds (ASWs) is not clearly defined. We hypothesized that peritoneal penetration (PP) during DL was a valid indication to convert to an exploratory laparotomy (EL). Retrospective review of hemodynamically stable ASWs requiring operation. A total of 161 patients with ASWs were identified, with 36 of 92 patients (39.1%) undergoing DL converted to EL. All 36 patients had PP; 20 of 36 (55.6%) ELs were therapeutic (TL). The number of nontherapeutic laparotomies (NTLs) prevented was 56 (60.9%). Five of 92 patients had PP on DL but did not undergo EL. Twenty-four of 69 patients who underwent initial EL had an NTL (34.8%). If this group had undergone an initial DL, and PP was used to determine need for EL, the number of NTLs would have been reduced to 10 (14.5%), a 58.3% reduction. Evidence of PP during DL is a reasonable indicator to determine the need for EL and reduce the number of NTLs.

Diagnostic Laparoscopy in Abdominal Stab Wounds: A Prospective, Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for identifying patients with abdominal stab wounds requiring surgical repair has not been defined. The potential benefits of diagnostic laparoscopy by incorporating it into the routine diagnostic workup of patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds was evaluated in a two-layer, randomized study.

METHODS

From May 1997 through January 2002, stable patients without peritonitis but with demonstrated peritoneal violation were randomized (A) to exploratory laparotomy (AEL) (n = 23) or diagnostic laparoscopy (ADL) (n = 20). Simultaneously, patients with equivocal peritoneal violation on local wound exploration were randomized (B) to diagnostic laparoscopy (BDL) (n = 28) or expectant nonoperative management (BNOM) (n = 31). Hospital morbidity, length of stay, and costs were primary endpoints, with postdischarge disability being a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

In patients with peritoneal penetration (AEL vs. ADL), there were minimal differences in the therapeutic operation rate (8 of 23 [AEL] vs. 8 of 20 [ADL], p = 0.761), mortality (none), morbidity (3 of 23 vs. 2 of 20, p = 0.999), hospital stay (mean +/- SD) (5.7 +/- 2.5 vs. 5.1 +/- 4.0 days, p = 0.049), hospital costs (4.6 +/- 1.3 vs. 4.8 +/- 1.9 x 1,000 EUR, p = 0.576), and length of sick leave (34 +/- 12 vs. 29 +/- 11 days, p = 0.305). In patients with equivocal peritoneal penetration (BDL vs. BNOM), laparoscopy found more mostly minor organ injuries (7 of 28 [BDL] vs. 1 of 31 [BNOM], p = 0.022) with no significant difference in therapeutic operations (3 of 28 vs. 1 of 31, p = 0.337) or morbidity (3 of 28 vs. 0 of 31, p = 0.101), but was associated with increased length of stay (2.6 +/- 2.1 vs. 1.9 +/- 1.8 days, p = 0.022), hospital costs (4.2 +/- 1.3 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.1 x 1,000 EUR, p = 0.000), and sick leave requirements (18 of 23 vs. 8 of 28 of eligible patients, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with demonstrated peritoneal violation, laparoscopy offers little benefit over exploratory laparotomy. In patients with equivocal peritoneal penetration on local wound exploration, laparoscopy detects more mostly minor organ injuries than expectant nonoperative management but is associated with increased hospital stay, costs, and sick leave requirements. Overall, diagnostic laparoscopy cannot be recommended as a routine diagnostic tool in anterolateral abdominal and thoracoabdominal stab wounds.

Laparoscopic repair of small bowel injury in penetrating abdominal trauma

A role for laparoscopy in the management of selected trauma patients is now possible. We report a case of a patient with a stab wound and a bowel perforation who underwent diagnostic and laparoscopic treatment.

Impact of increased use of laparoscopy on negative laparotomy rates after penetrating trauma

BACKGROUND

Our institution was one of the first to report the use of laparoscopy in the management of penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) in 1977. Despite early interest, laparoscopy was rarely used. Changes in 1995 resulted in an increase in interest and use of laparoscopy. We present our recent experience with laparoscopy.

METHODS

Our trauma registry and operative log were used to identify patients with blunt and penetrating injuries to the abdomen, back, and flank who underwent laparotomy or laparoscopy during the past 5 years. Patient demographics, operative findings, complications, and length of stay were reviewed. The number of laparoscopic explorations, therapeutic, nontherapeutic, and negative laparotomies were trended.

RESULTS

There were 429 abdominal explorations for trauma. The rate of laparoscopy after penetrating injury increased from 8.7% to 16%, and after stab wounds from 19.4% to 27%. There was an associated decrease in the negative laparotomy rate. Laparoscopy prevented unnecessary laparotomy in 25 patients with PAT. Four patients with diaphragm injuries underwent repair laparoscopically.

CONCLUSION

An aggressive laparoscopic program can improve patient management after PAT.

Avaliação diagnóstica da laparoscopia associada à análise do líquido intraperitoneal nas lesões intra-abdominais provocadas por arma de ar comprimido: estudo experimental em cães

Avaliação de eficácia da laparoscopia, associada à análise bacteriológica do líquido intraperitoneal pela coloração de Gram., no diagnóstico de lesões intra-abdominais provocadas em cães com arma de ar comprimido. A alta incidência de óbitos como resultado de ferimentos por arma de fogo tem contribuído para implantação de novas técnicas diagnósticas. O uso crescente de laparoscopia diagnóstica em urgências torna necessário aprimorar qualidade e fidedignidade dos resultados obtidos. Este experimento avalia acurácia, sensibilidade e especificidade da laparoscopia, incluindo 20 cães submetidos a trauma abdominal, com disparo do tipo encostado, e cinco cães como grupo de controle. Na laparoscopia, foram feitos inventário sistemático da cavidade abdominal, conferido por laparotomia, e coleta de líquido intraperitoneal para análise bacteriológica. A laparoscopia apresentou acurácia de 88,29%, sensibilidade de 88,29% e especificidade de 100%. O valor preditivo positivo da coloração de Gram foi 100%. Concluiu-se que a laparoscopia é eficaz no diagnóstico de lesões intra-abdominais provocadas por arma de ar comprimido, em cães hemodinamicamente estáveis. Mas, algumas lesões, evidenciadas na laparotomia, passaram despercebidas na laparoscopia. Realização concomitante de análise bacteriológica pela coloração de Gram pode aumentar a eficácia e diminuir a possibilidade de erros no diagnóstico de lesões. Laparoscopia associada à análise bacteriológica possibilita melhores resultados com mínimo dano ao paciente

Analysis of laparoscopy in trauma

BACKGROUND

The optimum roles for laparoscopy in trauma have yet to be established. To date, reviews of laparoscopy in trauma have been primarily descriptive rather than analytic. This article analyzes the results of laparoscopy in trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

Outcome analysis was done by reviewing 37 studies with more than 1,900 trauma patients, and laparoscopy was analyzed as a screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic tool. Laparoscopy was regarded as a screening tool if it was used to detect or exclude a positive finding (eg, hemoperitoneum, organ injury, gastrointestinal spillage, peritoneal penetration) that required operative exploration or repair. Laparoscopy was regarded as a diagnostic tool when it was used to identify all injuries, rather than as a screening tool to identify the first indication for a laparotomy. It was regarded as a diagnostic tool only in studies that mandated a laparotomy (gold standard) after laparoscopy to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic findings. Costs and charges for using laparoscopy in trauma were analyzed when feasible.

RESULTS

As a screening tool, laparoscopy missed 1% of injuries and helped prevent 63% of patients from having a trauma laparotomy. When used as a diagnostic tool, laparoscopy had a 41% to 77% missed injury rate per patient. Overall, laparoscopy carried a 1% procedure-related complication rate. Cost-effectiveness has not been uniformly proved in studies comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy has been applied safely and effectively as a screening tool in stable patients with acute trauma. Because of the large number of missed injuries when used as a diagnostic tool, its value in this context is limited. Laparoscopy has been reported infrequently as a therapeutic tool in selected patients, and its use in this context requires further study.

Priorities in the multiple trauma patient

The primary goal in caring for the traumatized patient is to provide effective resuscitative interventions while minimizing the time from injury to definitive care. The emergency physician is often called on to provide initial stabilization and resuscitation, which is done most effectively if one is well versed in trauma care and has an organized approach to the multiply injured patient. This article discusses several current controversies in the emergency care of trauma patients.

Laparoscopic colectomy

Laparoscopic treatments for benign colonic disease and as palliative operations for advanced malignant disease have gained widespread acceptance as safe, efficacious, and beneficial treatment options. There are also strong indications that laparoscopic treatment for malignant colorectal disease is a viable alternative in selective patients. Further studies with substantial follow-up to determine the adequacy of resection and the comparability of cure rates are needed to assess any changes in the long-term staging and survival patterns of these treatments.

The role of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma

In a collective analysis of 11 reports with a total of 355 blunt abdominal trauma patients, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic laparoscopy in predicting the eventual need for therapeutic laparotomy were 94% and 98%, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 97%. Although fairly accurate and safe (morbidity rate about 1.2%), the invasiveness, cost and time-consuming nature of diagnostic laparoscopy limit its routine use in trauma patients. It could, however, be useful in selecting patients with minor or nonbleeding injuries for nonoperative management after positive peritoneal lavage or computed tomography, and in excluding occult bowel and diaphragmatic injuries in patients with equivocal findings, thereby reducing the number of unnecessary laparotomies. With the improvement of laparoscopic techniques and instrumentation, more injuries can probably be managed laparoscopically with all the benefits observed with the shift from open to laparoscopic procedures in other patient populations, and it is likely that laparoscopy will find its place as an integral part of evaluating and treating patients with blunt abdominal trauma. At present, however, laparoscopy cannot be recommended as a routine tool for evaluating patients with blunt abdominal trauma, except in controlled clinical trials.

Laparoscopy for triage of penetrating trauma: the decision to explore

The role of diagnostic laparoscopy in penetrating trauma continues to evolve. We reviewed our experience to determine the effect of laparoscopy on therapeutic laparotomy rates, length of hospital stay, and hospital charges. Laparoscopy was performed on 106 hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating abdominal injuries (66 had gunshot wounds, 40 had stab wounds). All patients with laparoscopically identified peritoneal penetration underwent open laparotomy. At laparoscopy, 41 (39%) had positive findings, whereas 65 (61%) had none. Two patients with retroperitoneal hematomas and one with ecchymosis of the peritoneum were not explored. Thus 68 (64%) did not require laparotomy. Among the 38 who underwent laparotomy, 29 (76%) had positive findings and 9 (24%) had a negative laparotomy. Nineteen patients (50%) had a therapeutic laparotomy. This compares with a therapeutic laparotomy rate of 18% had all 106 patients undergone mandatory laparotomy. Data for length of stay and hospital charges were analyzed. Due to the extended stay associated with tube thoracostomy (n = 21), a subgroup excluding patients with chest tubes was also analyzed. In this subgroup, there was a significant difference in hospital stay between those who had only a laparoscopy and those who underwent a negative laparotomy (2.6 +/- 1.7 vs. 4.7 +/- 1.6, p < 0.01). The average nonsurgical charge for patients who had a negative laparotomy was more than double that for those who had laparoscopy only ($8275 +/- 4692 vs. $3762 +/- 3786, p < 0.01). We conclude that the use of diagnostic laparoscopy to identify peritoneal penetration resulted in an improved therapeutic laparotomy rate as well as significant reduction in hospital stay and hospital charges.

Laparoscopy in trauma

Laparoscopy is a nearly century-old technique that has experienced a resurgence of interest from surgeons since the development of technology that has broadened its applications. Although laparoscopy has been used to evaluate patients with possible abdominal trauma, its use for this purpose is limited by the availability of other diagnostic procedures that may be more suitable for particular circumstances and are more accurate for certain injuries. Laparoscopy is contraindicated in patients who are hypovolemic or hemodynamically unstable and should not be performed in patients with clear indications for celiotomy. It may not be appropriate for patients with cardiac dysfunction, nor for those with significant head injuries who are at risk for intracranial hypertension. Its best applications may be in stable patients with stab wounds or those with tangential gunshot wounds of the abdomen. The likelihood of missing hollow visceral injuries depends upon the indications for conversion to celiotomy. If peritoneal violation or the presence of a small amount of blood in the peritoneal cavity is used as an indication for celiotomy, then the missed injury rate will be low but the unnecessary celiotomy rate will be diminished only slightly compared with a policy of mandatory celiotomy. Excessive enthusiasm for laparoscopy in trauma might result in its use when other diagnostic measures or simple observation are more appropriate. The desire to perform a procedure can be compelling, especially in circumstances in which the general surgeon would not operate upon a patient but simply provide postoperative care after other surgeons have operated. The use of laparoscopy for these purposes can only be condemned, as it increases the costs and risks of care without improving the outcome. The role of laparoscopy in trauma is evolving, and further research into its diagnostic role and therapeutic applications is clearly needed.

Laparoscopic evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal traumatic injuries

BACKGROUND

General surgeons' recent familiarity with advanced laparoscopic techniques have rendered laparoscopy feasible safely in the trauma setting. Traditionally high rates of nontherapeutic laparotomies also contribute to this increased interest. This study was undertaken to determine the predictive value and accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma.

METHODS

Entry criteria included thoracoabdominal gunshot (GSW) or stab wounds (SW) in otherwise hemodynamically stable patients. A high index of suspicion for either hemoperitoneum, peritonitis, or diaphragmatic injury was required for inclusion. All patients underwent DL in the operating room followed by standard laparotomy. The findings of the two evaluations were compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included in the study. Twenty males and 4 females with an average age of 34 years made up the group. Violation of the peritoneal cavity was present in 21 cases and absent in 3. No intraabdominal injuries were found during laparotomy in the latter three cases without peritoneal violation. The specificity and positive predictive value were 100% for lesions of the diaphragm, liver, spleen, pancreas, kidney, and hollow viscus. The sensitivity was highest for liver and spleen injuries (88%), followed by diaphragmatic injuries (83%), pancreas and kidney injuries (50%), and lowest for injuries of hollow viscus (25%). The negative predictive value was 95, 99, 91, and 57%, respectively, for these organs.

CONCLUSIONS

DL could have avoided unnecessary laparotomy in 38% of cases in this study. There were no complications related to laparoscopy. The greatest value of DL in penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries is in the evaluation of peritoneal violation, diaphragmatic, and upper abdominal solid-organ injuries. It is not ideal for predicting hollow viscus injuries.