Severe hepatic trauma: nonoperative management, definitive repair, or damage control surgery?

Delayed versus early hepatic resection among patients with severe traumatic liver injuries undergoing damage control laparotomy

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the effect of time to hepatic resection on the outcomes of patients with high-grade liver injuries who underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL).

METHODS

This is a 4-year (2017-2020) analysis of the ACS-TQIP. Adult trauma patients with severe liver injuries (AAST-OIS grade ​≥ ​III) who underwent DCL and hepatic resection were included. We excluded patients with early mortality (<24 ​h). Patients were stratified into those who received hepatic resection within the initial operation (Early) and take-back operation (Delayed).

RESULTS

Of 914 patients identified, 29% had a delayed hepatic resection. On multivariable regression analyses, although delayed resection was not associated with mortality (aOR:1.060,95%CI[0.57-1.97],p ​= ​0.854), it was associated with higher complications (aOR:1.842,95%CI[1.38-2.46],p ​< ​0.001), and longer hospital (β: +0.129, 95%CI[0.04-0.22],p ​= ​0.005) and ICU (β:+0.198,95%CI[0.14-0.25],p ​< ​0.001) LOS, compared to the early resection.

CONCLUSION

Delayed hepatic resection was associated with higher adjusted odds of major complications and longer hospital and ICU LOS, however, no difference in mortality, compared to early resection.

Transarterial embolization with n-butyl cyanoacrylate for the treatment of active abdominopelvic bleeding in the polytraumatized patient

PURPOSE

An increasing number of polytraumatized patient presenting with active abdominal pelvic bleeding (APB) have been treated by endovascular selective embolization. However, reports on evaluate the efficacy, safety and complications caused by this technique have been limited. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of embolization of APB using N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue (NBCA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single center retrospective study, that included consecutive 47 patients presenting with traumatic APB treated by embolization with NBCA between January 2013 and June 2019. The efficacy endpoint was defined as the absence of contrast extravasation immediately after procedure and clinical stabilization in the following 24 h after procedure. Clinical stabilization was defined as no rebleeding after embolization or the need for a surgical approach until the patient is discharged. Safety endpoint were any technical or clinical complications related to the embolization procedure.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 38.6 years (3-81), with a predominance of males (87.2%). The major causal factor of APB being involvement in a car accident, accounting for 68% of cases. Of the 47 cases, 29.8% presented pelvic trauma and the remaining (70.2%) presented abdominal trauma. The efficacy rate was 100%, while no complications related to the procedure were observed. The mortality rate was 14.8% (7/47) due to neurologic decompensation and other clinical causes.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular embolization of traumatic abdominopelvic bleedings appear to be a highly safe and effective treatment, while avoiding emergent exploratory open surgeries.

Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes).

METHODS

We searched 11 databases (1950-April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions.

RESULTS

Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

Nonoperative management of solid abdominal organ injuries: From past to present

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Today, a significant proportion of solid abdominal organ injuries, whether caused by penetrating or blunt trauma, are managed nonoperatively. However, the controversy over operative versus nonoperative management started more than a hundred years ago. The aim of this review is to highlight some of the key past observations and summarize the current knowledge and guidelines in the management of solid abdominal organ injuries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A non-systematic search through historical articles and references on the management practices of abdominal injuries was conducted utilizing early printed volumes of major surgical and medical journals from the late 19th century onwards.

RESULTS

Until the late 19th century, the standard treatment of penetrating abdominal injuries was nonoperative. The first article advocating formal laparotomy for abdominal gunshot wounds was published in 1881 by Sims. After World War I, the policy of mandatory laparotomy became standard practice for penetrating abdominal trauma. During the latter half of the 20th century, the concept of selective nonoperative management, initially for anterior abdominal stab wounds and later also gunshot wounds, was adopted by major trauma centers in South Africa, the United States, and little later in Europe. In blunt solid abdominal organ injuries, the evolution from surgery to nonoperative management in hemodynamically stable patients aided by the development of modern imaging techniques was rapid from 1980s onwards.

CONCLUSION

With the help of modern imaging techniques and adjunctive radiological and endoscopic interventions, a major shift from mandatory to selective surgical approach to solid abdominal organ injuries has occurred during the last 30-50 years.

Decreased mortality, laparotomy, and embolization rates for liver injuries during a 13-year period in a major Scandinavian trauma center

Background

Although non-operative management (NOM) has become the treatment of choice in hemodynamically normal patients with liver injuries, the optimal management of Organ Injury Scale (OIS) grades 4 and 5 injuries is still controversial. Oslo University Hospital Ulleval (OUHU) has since 2008 performed angiography only with signs of bleeding. Simultaneously, damage control resuscitation was implemented. Would these changes result in a decreased laparotomy rate and need for angioembolization (AE), as well as decreased mortality?

Methods

We performed a retrospective study on all adult patients with liver injuries admitted at OUHU between 2002 and 2014. The total study population and patients with OIS grades 4 and 5 liver injuries underwent comparison between the periods before (P1) and after (P2) August 1, 2008.

Results

583 patients were included (P1: 237, P2: 346), with a median Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 29. The total population and the subgroup of OIS 4 and 5 injuries were comparable in age, gender, mechanism of injury, injury severity and physiology. Overall laparotomy rates decreased from P1 to P2 (35%–24%; p<0.01), as did the AE rate (11%–5%; p<0.01). The 30-day crude mortality decreased from 14% to 7% (p<0.05). A logistic regression model predicted an OR of 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) for dying when admitted in P2. In OIS grades 4 and 5 injuries (n=149, median ISS 34), similar reduction in AE rate was seen (30%–12%; p<0.05). The NOM rate for OIS grades 4 and 5 injuries was 70%, with 98% success rate. For the 30% requiring surgery, the mortality remained high (P1 52%; P2 40%), despite more balanced transfusion strategy.

Discussion

Changes in resuscitation and treatment protocols were associated with decreased laparotomy, and AE rates as well as overall mortality. NOM is safe in 70% of patients with OIS grades 4 and 5 injuries, in contrast to the critically ill 30% requiring surgery who still have poor outcome.

Level of evidence

IV.

Preliminary Report of Percutaneous Cholecystostomy as Diagnosis and Treatment of Biliary Tract Trauma

BACKGROUND

Biliary leak following severe blunt liver injuries is a complex problem becoming more frequent with improvements in non-operative management. Standard treatment requires main bile duct drainage usually performed by endoscopic sphincterotomy and stent placement. We report our experience with cholecystostomy as a first minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with post-traumatic biliary leak between 2006 and 2015. In the first period (2006-2010), biliary fistula was managed using perihepatic drainage and endoscopic, percutaneous or surgical main bile duct drainage. After 2010, cholecystostomy as an initial minimally invasive approach was performed.

RESULTS

Of 341 patients with blunt liver injury, 18 had a post-traumatic biliary leak. Ten patients received standard treatment and eight patients underwent cholecystostomy. The cholecystostomy (62.5%) and the standard treatment (80%) groups presented similar success rates as the first biliary drainage procedure (p = 0.41). Cholecystostomy presented no severe complications and resulted, when successful, in a bile flow rate inversion between the perihepatic drains and the gallbladder drain within a median [IQR] 4 days [1-7]. The median time for bile leak resolution was 26 days in the cholecystostomy group and 39 days in the standard treatment group (p = 0.09). No significant difference was found considering median duration of hospital stay (54 and 74 days, respectively, p = 0.37) or resuscitation stay (17.5 and 19.5 days, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

Cholecystostomy in non-operative management of biliary fistula after blunt liver injury could be an effective, simple and safe first-line procedure in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of post-traumatic biliary tract injuries.

The rate of success of the conservative management of liver trauma in a developing country

BACKGROUND

The conservative treatment of liver trauma has made important progress over the last 10 years at the Trauma University Hospital in Tirana, Albania. The percentage of success was 58.7%. The aims of this study were to analyze the conservative treatment of liver trauma and to compare the results with those in the literature.

METHODS

This study was conducted prospectively from January 2009 to December 2012. We analyzed 173 patients admitted to our hospital with liver trauma. Liver injuries were evaluated according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the World Society of Emergency Surgery classification, while the anatomic gravity of the associated injuries was defined using the Injury Severity Score system. The potential mortality was estimated with the Revised Trauma Score.

RESULTS

Out of the 173 patients with liver trauma, 83.2% were male. The main cause of liver trauma was motor vehicle crashes (50.9%). Blunt trauma was the cause of liver injury in 129 cases (74.6%), and penetrating trauma occurred in 44 cases (25.4%). Initially, the decision was to manage 88 cases (50.9%) via the conservative approach. Of these, 73 cases (42.2%) were successfully treated with conservative treatment, while in 15 cases (17.2%), this approach failed. The success rate of conservative treatment by grade of injuries was as follows: grade I (38.4%), grade II (30.1%), grade III (28.8%), and grade IV (2.7%). The likelihood of the success of conservative treatment had a significant correlation with the grade of the liver injury (p < 0.00001), associated intra-abdominal injuries (p = 0.00051), and complications (z = 2.3169, p = 0.02051). The overall mortality rate of liver trauma was 13.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood of success in using conservative treatment had a significant correlation with the grade of liver injury and associated intra-abdominal injuries. The limited hospital resources and low level of consensus on conservative treatment had a negative impact on the level of success.

Management of Liver Trauma

In the last 30 years, the management of liver injury has evolved significantly. The advancement of imaging studies has played an important role in the conservative approach for management. A shift from operative to nonoperative management for most hemodynamically stable patients with hepatic injury has been prompted by speed and sensitivity of diagnostic imaging and by advances in critical care monitoring. In this review article, the up-to-date recommendation on the management approach of liver trauma will be discussed.

Non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury

BACKGROUND

Surgery used to be the treatment of choice in cases of blunt hepatic injury, but this approach gradually changed over the last two decades as increasing non-operative management (NOM) of splenic injury led to its use for hepatic injury. The improvement in critical care monitoring and computed tomographic scanning, as well as the more frequent use of interventional radiology techniques, has helped to bring about this change to non-operative management. Liver trauma ranges from a small capsular tear, without parenchymal laceration, to massive parenchymal injury with major hepatic vein/retrohepatic vena cava lesions. In 1994, the Organ Injury Scaling Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) revised the Hepatic Injury Scale to have a range from grade I to VI. Minor injuries (grade I or II) are the most frequent liver injuries (80% to 90% of all cases); severe injuries are grade III-V lesions; grade VI lesions are frequently incompatible with survival. In the medical literature, the majority of patients who have undergone NOM have low-grade liver injuries. The safety of NOM in high-grade liver lesions, AAST grade IV and V, remains a subject of debate as a high incidence of liver and collateral extra-abdominal complications are still described.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-operative management compared to operative management in high-grade (grade III-V) blunt hepatic injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The search for studies was run on 14 April 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), PubMed, ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and we screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials that compare non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently applied the selection criteria to relevant study reports. We used standard methodological procedures as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to find any randomised controlled trials of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to further explore the preliminary findings provided by animal models and observational clinical studies that suggests there may be a beneficial effect of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury, large, high quality randomised trials are needed.

Surgical management of AAST grades III-V hepatic trauma by Damage control surgery with perihepatic packing and Definitive hepatic repair-single centre experience

Background

Severe liver injury in trauma patients still accounts for significant morbidity and mortality. Operative techniques in liver trauma are some of the most challenging. They include the broad and complex area, from damage control to liver resection.

Material and method

This is a retrospective study of 121 trauma patients with hepatic trauma American Association for Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade III–V who have undergone surgery. Indications for surgery include refractory hypotension not responding to resuscitation due to uncontrolled hemorrhage from liver trauma; massive hemoperitonem on Focused assessment by ultrasound for trauma (FAST) and/or Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) as well as Multislice Computed Tomography (MSCT) findings of the severe liver injury and major vascular injuries with active bleeding.

Results

Non-survivors have significantly higher AAST grade of liver injury and higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (p = 0.000; p = 0.0001). Non-survivors have significant hypotension on arrival and lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) on admission (p = 0.000; p = 0.0001). Definitive hepatic repair was performed in 62(51.2 %) patient. Damage Control, liver packing and planned re-laparotomy after 48 h were used in 59(48.8 %). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of the surgical approach. There was significant difference in the amount of red blood cells (RBC) transfusion in the first 24 h between survivors and non-survivors (p = 0.001). Overall mortality rate was 33.1 %. Regarding complications non-survivors had significantly prolonged bleeding and higher rate of Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (p = 0.0001; p = 0.0001), while survivors had significantly higher rate of pleural effusion (p = 0.0001).

Conclusion

All efforts in the treatment of severe liver injuries should be directed to the rapid and effective control of bleeding, because uncontrollable hemorrhage is the cause of early death and it requires massive blood transfusion, all of which contributes to the late fatal complication.

Mechanisms and treatment of post-traumatic liver injury

Multiple organ failure is the leading cause of death in patients with severe multiple trauma in the early stage after injury. Hepatic insufficiency is common in intensive care unit (ICU), and about 27% of the patients with severe trauma suffer hepatic failure. However, the pathogenesis of traumatic liver damage is complicated due to the following main reasons: liver trauma, ischemia-reperfusion injury, severe sepsis, danger associated molecular patterns and so on. Clinically, trauma-induced liver injury can be managed conservatively or surgically, therefore, clarifying the mechanisms of traumatic liver damage, finding a new therapeutic target and improving its diagnosis and treatment are very important. This paper reviews the mechanism of post-traumatic liver injury and its diagnosis and treatment.

Management of blunt liver trauma in 134 severely injured patients

BACKGROUND

In haemodynamic stable patients without an acute abdomen, nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt liver injuries (BLI) has become the standard of care with a reported success rate of between 80 and 100%. Concern has been expressed about the potential overuse of NOM and the fact that failed NOM is associated with higher mortality rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors that might indicate the need for surgical intervention, and to assess the efficacy of NOM.

METHODS

A single centre prospective study between 2008 and 2013 in a level-1 Trauma Centre. One hundred thirty four patients with BLI were diagnosed on CT-scan or at laparotomy. The median ISS was 25 (range 16-34).

RESULTS

Thirty five (26%) patients underwent an early exploratory laparotomy. The indication for surgery was haemodynamic instability in 11 (31%) patients, an acute abdomen in 16 (46%), and 8 (23%) patients had CT findings of intraabdominal injuries, other than the hepatic injury, that required surgical repair. NOM was initiated in 99 (74%) patients, 36 patients had associated intraabdominal solid organ injuries. Seven patients developed liver related complications. Five (5%) patients required a delayed laparotomy (liver related (3), splenic injury (2)). NOM failure was not related to the presence of shock on admission (p=1000), to the grade of liver injury (p=0.790) or associated intraabdominal injuries (p=0.866).

CONCLUSION

Physiologic behaviour or CT findings dictated the need for operative intervention. NOM of BLI has a high success rate (95%). Nonoperative management of BLI should be considered in patients who respond to resuscitation, irrespective of the grade of liver trauma. Associated intraabdominal solid organ injuries do not exclude NOM.

Management of blunt liver injury: what is new?

Nonoperative management has become the surgical treatment of choice in the hemodynamically stable patient with blunt hepatic trauma. The increased use and success of nonoperative management have been facilitated by the development of increasingly higher resolution computed tomography imaging, improved management of physiology and resuscitation (damage control), and routine availability of interventional procedures such as angiography and embolization, image-guided percutaneous drainage, and endoscopy. On the other hand, recognition of the patient who should proceed to immediate laparotomy is of utmost importance. A systematic and logical approach to the control of hemorrhage is required in the operating room. Thorough knowledge of the anatomy and surgical techniques, such as perihepatic packing, effective Pringle maneuver, hepatic mobilization, infrahepatic and suprahepatic control of the IVC, and stapled hepatectomy, is essential.

Management of liver injuries: predictors for the need of operation and damage control surgery

Management of liver injuries: Predictors for the need of operation and damage control surgery,

INTRODUCTION

The advancement in the management of liver injuries, including the use of non-operative management (NOM), damage control surgery (DCS) and angiographic embolisation (AE); has resulted, in improvement of outcomes. The aim of this study is to analyse the outcome of liver injury patients in our institution and to identify predictors for the need of operative management (OM) and DCS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 218 patients with liver injury admitted to King, Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital from May 2002 to May 2011. Data collection included demographic, data, emergency department parameters, detail of liver injuries, and outcome in terms of mortality rate (MR). Stepwise logistic regression was performed to identify mutually independent predictors for the need of OM and DCS.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighteen patients with liver injury were identified (156 blunt and 62 penetrating). One hundred fifty-four patients (70.6%) underwent OM due to hemodynamic instability, (96), peritonitis (24), and other indications (34). DCS (perihepatic packing and temporary abdominal, closure) was utilised in 45 patients. NOM was attempted in 64 patients (29.4%), 6 of these, subsequently required laparotomy (success rate 90.6%). Angiography was performed in 47 patients, (14 in NOM, 33 in OM) and 40 patients received AE (10 in NOM, 30 in OM). Overall MR was 17.4%, the, MR was significantly higher in OM than in NOM (24 vs. 1.6%; p<0.001, OR 19.92). The mutually independent predictors for the need of operation were low Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), penetrating mechanism, tachycardia, and hypotension; while the independent predictors for DCS were high grade (>4) liver injury, tachycardia, and blunt mechanism.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall MR of liver injury patients was 17.4%. NOM carried a low MR and should be, attempted in the absence of hemodynamic instability and peritonitis. Patients with low GCS, penetrating injury, tachycardia, and hypotension were more likely to require operation. DCS should be considered while operating on patients with high grade liver injury, tachycardia, and blunt mechanism.

An outcome prediction model for exsanguinating patients with blunt abdominal trauma after damage control laparotomy: a retrospective study

Background

We present a series of patients with blunt abdominal trauma who underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL) and introduce a nomogram that we created to predict survival among these patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. From January 2002 to June 2012, 91 patients underwent DCL for hemorrhagic shock. We excluded patients with the following characteristics: a penetrating abdominal injury, age younger than 18 or older than 65 years, a severe or life-threatening brain injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] ≥ 4), emergency department (ED) arrival more than 6 hours after injury, pregnancy, end-stage renal disease, or cirrhosis. In addition, we excluded patients who underwent DCL after ICU admission or later in the course of hospitalization.

Results

The overall mortality rate was 61.5%: 35 patients survived and 56 died. We identified independent survival predictors, which included a preoperative Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 8 and a base excess (BE) value < -13.9 mEq/L. We created a nomogram for outcome prediction that included four variables: preoperative GCS, initial BE, preoperative diastolic pressure, and preoperative cardiopulmonary cerebral resuscitation (CPCR).

Conclusions

DCL is a life-saving procedure performed in critical patients, and devastating clinical outcomes can be expected under such dire circumstances as blunt abdominal trauma with exsanguination. The nomogram presented here may provide ED physicians and trauma surgeons with a tool for early stratification and risk evaluation in critical, exsanguinating patients.

Management of liver trauma in Kuwait

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to introduce the concept of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt liver trauma by establishing a protocol and a prospective Liver Trauma Registry in Kuwait.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A prospective Liver Trauma Registry was started in 4 hospitals and it included 117 patients who had sustained blunt liver trauma (94 men and 23 women). Unstable patients were taken to surgery while stable patients were managed conservatively regardless of the grade of liver injury. High-grade (III-VI) liver injuries were managed in collaboration with the liver surgery specialist.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 117 patients was 29.02 ± 11.18 years (range 7-63). NOM was successful in 94 (96%) patients and failed in 4 (4%) (these 4 then underwent successful surgery). Nineteen (16.2%) were unstable and underwent surgery immediately; 15 (79%) of them survived (they had had grade III-V injuries) and 4 died (2 with grade V injuries and 2 with grade VI injuries). Perihepatic packing was necessary in 8/19 (42%) patients. The overall mortality was 3.4% (4/117).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that NOM was successful in a majority of patients with blunt liver trauma. In addition, it confirmed that the magnitude of liver injury and haemoperitoneum did not preclude NOM as long as the patient was haemodynamically stable.

Conservative management of abdominal injuries

OBJECTIVE

Non-operative management of abdominal injuries has recently become more common. Especially non-operative treatment of blunt abdominal trauma is gaining wide acceptance. In this study, the efficacy of non-operative treatment in abdominal trauma (blunt penetrating) is discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients who received treatment due to abdominal trauma from November 2008 to January 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. The demographic characteristics, type of injury, injured organ, type of treatment (operative vs. nonoperative) and mortality data were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study includes 115 patients treated for abdominal trauma in our department. The mechanism of trauma was stab wounds in 60%, blunt abdominal trauma in 23.5% and gunshot wounds in 16.5%. Forty-two patients (36.5%) were operated for hemodynamic instability and/or peritonitis on admission. The remaining 63.5% of patients (n=73) were treated nonoperatively, 10 of whom required laparotomy during follow-up. The remaining 63 patients were treated with non-operative management. The success rate for non-operative treatment was 86.3% and there was no difference in terms of the types of injuries. The mortality rate was 4.3% (n= 5) in the whole series, but there were no deaths among the patients who had received non-operative treatment. In the whole patient group 54.2% (n=63) were treated nonoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Nonoperative treatment in abdominal trauma is safe and effective. Patients with clinical stability and normal physical examination findings can be treated nonoperatively with close monitoring.