Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in management of abdominal trauma

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgeries in Trauma

This article delves into the role of minimally invasive surgeries in trauma, specifically laparoscopy and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). It discusses the benefits of laparoscopy over traditional laparotomy, including its accuracy in detecting peritoneal violation and intraperitoneal injuries caused by penetrating trauma. The article also explores the use of laparoscopy as an adjunct to nonoperative management of abdominal injuries and in cases of blunt trauma with unclear abdominal injuries. Furthermore, it highlights the benefits of VATS in diagnosing and treating thoracic injuries, such as traumatic diaphragmatic injuries, retained hematomas, and persistent pneumothorax.

Paradigms in trauma laparoscopy for anterior abdominal stab wounds: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASW) are a heterogeneous presentation with evolving management over time and heterogenous practice between centres. The aim of this scoping review was to identify, characterise and classify paradigms for trauma laparoscopies for AASW.

METHODOLOGY

Studies were screened from Embase, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from 1 January 1947 until 1 January 2023. Extracted data included indications for trauma laparoscopies vs laparotomies, and criteria for conversion to an open procedure.

RESULTS

Of 72 included studies, 35 (48.6 %) were published in the United States, with an increasing number from South Africa since 2014. Screening tests to determine an indication for surgery included local wound exploration, computed tomography, and serial clinical examination. Two studies proposed no absolute contraindications to laparoscopy, whereas most papers supported trauma laparoscopies over laparotomies in hemodynamically stable patients with positive or equivocal screening tests. However, clinical decision trees were used inconsistently both between and within many hospital centres. Triggers for conversion to laparotomy were diverse. Older studies typically reported conversion if peritoneal breach was identified. More recent studies reported advances in technical skills and technology allowed attempt at laparoscopic repair for organ and/or vascular injury.

CONCLUSION

This review emphasises that there are many different paradigms of practice for AASW laparoscopy, which are evolving over time. Significant heterogeneity of these studies highlights that meta-analysis of outcomes for trauma laparoscopy is not appropriate unless the included studies report homogenous treatment paradigms and patient cohorts. The decision to perform a trauma laparoscopy should be based on surgeon/hospital experience, patient factors, and resource availability.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Could trauma laparoscopy be the standard of care for hemodynamically stable patients? A retrospective analysis of 165 cases

BACKGROUND

Trauma laparoscopy may provide a less invasive alternative to laparotomy by providing accurate diagnosis and minimally invasive management of selected trauma patients. The risk of missing injuries during the laparoscopic evaluation still refrains surgeons from using this approach. Our aim was to evaluate feasibility and safety of trauma laparoscopy in selected patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of hemodynamically trauma patients who underwent laparoscopic management in a tertiary center in Brazil due to abdominal trauma. Patients were identified by searching through the institutional database. We collected demographic and clinical data, focusing on avoidance of exploratory laparotomy, and missed injury rate, morbidity, and length of stay. Categorical data were analyzed using Chi-square, while numerical comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

We evaluated 165 cases, of which 9.7% needed conversion to an exploratory laparotomy. One-hundred and twenty-one patients (73%) had at least one intrabdominal injury. Two missed injuries to retroperitoneal organs were identified (1.2%), of which only one was clinically relevant. Three patients died (1.8%), one of which was due to complications from an intestinal injury after conversion. No deaths were related to the laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSION

In selected hemodynamically stable trauma patients, the laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe, and reduces the need for exploratory laparotomy and its associated complications.

Characteristics of Laparoscopic Surgery for Trauma Patients and Risks of Conversion to Open Laparotomy

BACKGROUND

The discussion is ongoing about appropriate indications for laparoscopic surgery in trauma patients. As timing and risks of conversion to laparotomy remain unclear, we aimed to elucidate characteristics of and risks for conversion following laparoscopic surgery, using a nationwide database.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted, using Japanese Trauma Data Bank (2004-2018). We included adult trauma patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery as an initial surgical intervention. Conversion to laparotomy was defined as laparotomy at the initial surgery. Patient demographics, mechanism and severity of injury, injured organs, timing of surgery, and clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without conversion. Risks for conversion were analyzed focusing on indications for laparoscopic surgery, after adjusting patient and institution characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 444 patients eligible for the study, 31 required conversions to laparotomy. The number of laparoscopic surgeries gradually increased over the study period (0.5-4.5% of trauma laparotomy), without changes in conversion rates (5-10%). Patients who underwent conversion had more severe abdominal injuries compared with those who did not (AIS 3 vs 2). While length of hospital stay and in-hospital mortality were comparable, abdominal complications were higher among patients with conversion (12.9 vs. 2.9%), particularly when laparoscopy was performed for peritonitis (OR, 22.08 [5.11-95.39]). A generalized estimating equation model adjusted patient background and identified hemoperitoneum and peritoneal penetration as risks for conversion (OR, 24.07 [7.35-78.75] and 8.26 [1.20- 56.75], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma laparoscopy for hemoperitoneum and peritoneal penetration were associated with higher incidence of conversion to open laparotomy.

Laparoscopy has better performance than laparotomy in the treatment of stable penetrating abdominal trauma: A retrospective cross-sectional study in a trauma referral hospital in Colombia

Background

Abdominal trauma is one of the leading causes of death. In Colombia, few studies have evaluated the results on related factors and outcomes when comparing laparotomy versus laparoscopy in the management of penetrating abdominal trauma. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopy in the treatment of stable penetrating abdominal trauma in a limited resources environment in a middle-income country.

Methods

Retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in Bogota, Colombia from January 2018 to October 2020. Patients over 18 years old, hemodynamically stable with penetrating abdominal trauma without other body parts injuries, that underwent laparoscopy and/or laparotomy surgical exploration and treatment were included. Frequencies, percentages, correlations, and odds ratio were calculated.

Results

A total of 52 patients were analyzed (26 laparoscopy vs. 26 laparotomy). Stabbing injuries were more frequent in both groups (76.9%), as well as involvement of the anterior abdomen. None missed enterotomies were reported in the laparoscopy group. Surgical time and bleeding were significantly lower in the laparoscopic approach group (63 vs. 115 min and 65 vs. 992 cc, respectively). The time to oral intake and length of stay in the intensive care unit was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic management group (2 vs. 3 days and 1 vs. 4 days, respectively).

Conclusions

Surgical results found a safe scenario in a limited resources environment for the application of the laparoscopic technique to approach penetrating abdominal trauma in stable patients without missed injuries, low threshold of conversion to open approach, and additionally not presenting a higher percentage of complications compared with the laparotomy group in Colombia. Operative time, oral intake, and length of hospital stay were lower in the fully therapeutic laparoscopy group.

Laparoscopy vs. Laparotomy for the Management of Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

There is still no consensus regarding the role of laparoscopy in trauma cases. The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for patients with blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systemically searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT comparative studies on effectiveness and safety of laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for the two authors independently performed the search, data extraction, and quality assessment.

Results

A total of 5,517 patients were enrolled in 23 eligible studies that were published in English. Meta-analysis results suggest that there is no significant difference in the incidence of missed injury and mortality between abdominal trauma patients receiving laparoscopy and those receiving laparotomy. Concerning postoperative complications, compared with patients in the open surgery group, those in the laparoscopy group are at a similar risk of intra-abdominal abscesses, thromboembolism, and ileus, while there is a decreased incidence of wound infection and pneumonia. Besides, patients in the laparoscopy group experience shorter hospitalization times and procedure times. For most outcomes, the sensitivity analysis yielded similar results to the primary analysis.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery is a practical alternative to laparotomy for appropriate patients. The decision to perform laparoscopy should be based on the experience of the surgeon and the resources available.

Minimally invasive splenectomy in grade IV splenic trauma: A case report associated with high-grade renal trauma

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

In closed abdominal trauma, the spleen is the most frequently injured organ (30-45%). Splenic lesions grades IV-V have higher failure rates with nonoperative management (NOM). The minimally invasive approach is an alternative when NOM fails. This is the first reported case of a patient with splenic and left renal trauma, both grade IV, with combined management, which consisted of a minimally invasive surgical resolution of the splenic trauma and a conservative management of the renal trauma, with a satisfactory recovery of the patient. This contributes to understanding the benefits of minimally invasive surgery in moderate splenic trauma associated with other high-grade injuries.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a 45-year-old woman with a multiple trauma after a motorbike vs car traffic accident. On physical examination, she was hemodynamically stable, with abdominal guarding and generalized rebound tenderness associated with multiple upper and lower limb fractures. An abdominal CT scan revealed grade IV splenic and left renal trauma, with moderate hemoperitoneum. A minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for hemoperitoneum drainage and splenectomy was performed.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

There is currently no consensus to define the indications for minimally invasive treatment on splenic trauma. While laparotomy is the standard treatment, it is not without potential severe complications, while laparoscopy providing a treatment option in selected cases with hemodynamic stability.

CONCLUSION

The role of the minimally invasive approach is safe and feasible in selected patients with high-grade splenic lesions and hemodynamic stability, including the association with other organic lesions such as kidney trauma.

Laparoscopic Management of Blunt and Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: A Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature

Introduction: Trauma is a leading cause of death in young patients. The prevalence of blunt and penetrating trauma varies widely across the globe. Similarly, the global experience with laparoscopy in trauma patients also varies. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that laparoscopy is feasible in trauma patients. We sought to contribute to these data by reporting our experience with laparoscopic management of blunt and penetrating trauma in a Belgian center. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on all trauma patients admitted to the Saint-Pierre University Hospital in Brussels, Belgium, over the 4-year period from January 2014 to December 2017. Hospital records for patients subjected to exploratory laparoscopy were retrospectively reviewed, and a descriptive analysis was reported. Results: There were 26 patients at a mean age of 40 years treated with laparoscopic exploration for injuries from blunt trauma (7), stab wounds (14), and gunshot injuries (5). The median interval between the arrival at the emergency unit and diagnostic laparoscopy was 175 minutes (range: 27-1440), and the median duration of operation was 119 minutes (range: 8-300). In all patients who underwent laparoscopy for trauma, there were 27% overall morbidity, no mortality, 11% reoperation rate, 7.4% conversions, and 19% incidence of negative laparoscopy. The median intensive care unit stay was 3 days (range: 0-41), and median total hospital stay was 7 days (range: 2-78). Conclusions: Laparoscopy is a safe, feasible, and effective tool in the surgical armamentarium to treat hemodynamically stable patients with blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. It allows complete and thorough evaluation of intra-abdominal viscera, reduces the incidence of nontherapeutic operations, and allows therapeutic intervention to repair a variety of injuries. However, it requires appropriate surgeon training and experience with advanced laparoscopic techniques to ensure good outcomes.

Surgeon choice in management of pediatric abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

No guidelines exist for management of hemodynamically stable children with suspected hollow viscus injury. We sought to determine factors contributing to surgeon management of these patients.

METHODS

Surgeon members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Pediatric Surgical Association completed a survey on 3 blunt abdominal injury scenarios: (1) isolated, (2) with multisystem injury, and (3) with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and a penetrating injury scenario. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with initial management of observation vs. operation for blunt injury and observation vs. local wound exploration versus laparoscopy for penetrating injury.

RESULTS

Of 394 surgeons (response rate 22.3%), 50.3% were pediatric surgeons. For scenarios 1-3, 32.2%, 49.3%, and 60.7% of surgeons chose operation over observation, respectively. Compared to isolated blunt injury, surgeons were more likely to choose operation for patients with multisystem injury (aOR 2.20, 95%CI: 1.78-2.72) or TBI (aOR 3.60, 95%CI: 2.79-4.66). Pediatric surgeons were less likely to choose operation (aOR 0.32, 95%CI: 0.22-0.44). For penetrating injury, 39.1%, 29.5%, and 31.5% of surgeons chose observation, local wound exploration, and laparoscopy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Large variation exists in management of hemodynamically stable children with suspected hollow viscus injury. Although patient injury characteristics account for some variation, surgeon factors such as type of surgeon also play a role. Evidence-based practice guidelines should be developed to standardize care.

TYPE OF STUDY

Cross-Sectional Survey.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Laparoscopy Compared With Laparotomy for the Management of Pediatric Blunt Abdominal Trauma

BACKGROUND

There is minimal evidence evaluating the risks and benefits of laparoscopy use in hemodynamically stable children with suspected abdominal injuries. The objective of this study was to evaluate postoperative outcomes in a large cohort of hemodynamically stable pediatric patients with blunt abdominal injury.

METHODS

Using the 2015-2016 National Trauma Data Bank, all patients aged <18 y with injury severity score (ISS) ≤25, Glasgow coma scale ≥13, and normal blood pressure who underwent an abdominal operation for blunt abdominal trauma were included. Patients were grouped into three treatment groups: laparotomy, laparoscopy, and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. Treatment effect estimation with inverse probability weighting was used to determine the association between treatment group and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of 720 patients, 504 underwent laparotomy, 132 underwent laparoscopy, and 84 underwent laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. The median age was 10 (IQR: 7-15) y, and the median ISS was 9 (IQR: 5-14). Mean hospital length of stay was 2.1 d shorter (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-3.2 d) and mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1.1 d shorter (95% CI: 0.6-1.5 d) for the laparoscopy group compared with the laparotomy group. The laparoscopy group had a 2.0% lower mean probability of surgical site infection than the laparotomy group (95% CI: 1.0%-3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of hemodynamically stable pediatric patients with blunt abdominal injury, laparoscopy may have improved outcomes over laparotomy.

Evaluation of Thoracoscopy with Single-Lumen Endotracheal Tube Intubation and Laparoscopy in the Diagnosis of Occult Diaphragmatic Injuries in Penetrating Thoracoabdominal Trauma

Background: The diagnosis of traumatic diaphragmatic injuries (TDIs) after penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma is challenging and conventional imaging is unreliable. Laparoscopy and thoracoscopy are minimally invasive modalities of choice in the diagnosis and management of TDI. A little is known on the value of thoracoscopy with single-lumen endotracheal tube intubation (SLETI) in the diagnosis of occult diaphragmatic injuries, and how it compares with laparoscopy. Methods: A prospective study evaluated thoracoscopy with SLETI as a diagnostic tool for occult TDI. Thoracoscopy was followed by diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm the findings and manage diaphragmatic and intra-abdominal injuries. Results: Thirty-one patients underwent thoracoscopy followed by laparoscopy. Majority were men (n = 27, 87%). The median age was 30 years. Twenty-six patients had stab wounds (83.8%), and 5 had gunshot wounds (16.1%). The incidence of diaphragmatic injury was 42% (n = 13). Thoracoscopy with SLETI correctly identified 12 (92%) patients with diaphragmatic injury, but 1 patient had dense pleural adhesions. Diagnostic laparoscopy identified all injuries. Conclusion: Thoracoscopy with SLETI and laparoscopy are feasible, safe, and accurate approaches in detecting TDI in stable patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries. However, dense pleural adhesions may prevent thoracoscopy. Laparoscopy allows inspection of both hemidiaphragms and diagnoses associated intra-abdominal injuries. The choice of primary technique will depend on the individual clinical scenario.

Laparoscopy for blunt abdominal trauma: a challenging endeavor

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma is challenging because of multiple associated injuries, higher trauma score values and higher morbidity and mortality, as compared with patients with penetrating abdominal trauma. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of laparoscopy in the management of blunt abdominal trauma patients and to highlight related challenges.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 4-year period, patients managed laparoscopically for blunt abdominal trauma were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative details, indications for laparoscopy and conversion, complications, and length of hospital stay were discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 35 stable patients underwent laparoscopy. The mean Injury Severity Score was 12 (4-38). Therapeutic laparoscopy was performed in 15 (56%) and diagnostic in 12 (44%) patients. Eight (23%) patients were converted to therapeutic laparotomy. Intraoperative bleeding, complex injuries, visualization problem, and equipment failure necessitated conversion. Three (30%) patients with negative computed tomography scan had therapeutic laparoscopy for mesenteric injuries. There were no missed injuries. The mean length of hospital stay was 11 days in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy for stable patients is feasible and safe. Multiple injuries make laparoscopy more difficult, and advanced laparoscopic skills are required. The conversion rate is high; however, the non-therapeutic laparotomies were completely eliminated in this study.

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.

Trauma laparoscopy: when to start and when to convert?

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopy for stable patients with abdominal trauma is increasing and its accuracy is nearly 100%. However, indications for laparoscopy and for conversion differ among centers. The aim of this study was to investigate indications for trauma laparoscopy and for conversion to laparotomy.

METHODS

All trauma patients managed with laparoscopy over a 4-year period were retrospectively analyzed. Indications for laparoscopy, morbidity, and reasons for conversion were investigated and predictors of morbidity and conversion were sought. The management algorithm of trauma patients was reviewed and updated.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy was used in 318 stable trauma patients. Thirty-five patients presented with blunt and 283 with penetrating abdominal injuries. The conversion rate was 11.7% for penetrating and 22.9% for blunt abdominal trauma patients. The most common reason for conversion was continuous intraabdominal bleeding that could not be controlled quickly. It was followed by multiple complex injuries, hemodynamic instability, and intraoperative visualization problems. Diagnostic laparoscopy was performed in 45%, and therapeutic laparoscopy in 55% of cases. There were no missed injuries. Complications occurred in 21.2% in the converted group and in 9.6% in the laparoscopic group. Among initial systolic blood pressure, pulse, hemoglobin, lactate, and base deficit levels, only lower pH was associated with conversion.

CONCLUSION

The management of all stable trauma patients with laparoscopy appears to be a safe approach. The use of sound laparoscopic equipment by a well-coordinated trauma team with adequate expertise in laparoscopy, adherence to the algorithm, and strict compliance with predetermined procedural steps are fundamental to success. Continuous intraoperative bleeding, complexity of injuries, deterioration of the patient, poor visibility, and equipment failure are indications for conversion.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Abdominal Trauma: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic surgery in abdominal emergencies, such as in trauma, has had a slow acceptance. The advantages described with this approach include less postoperative pain, faster recovery, quicker return to everyday activities, and fewer wound complications. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare outcomes following laparoscopic versus open surgery for abdominal trauma (either blunt or penetrating).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen patients with abdominal trauma who underwent laparoscopic surgery from January 2013 to May 2016 were compared with 19 patients undergoing open surgery during the same time period. Patients were matched (1:1) for age, gender, body-mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, hemodynamic stability, and injury mechanism. Intra- and postoperative variables were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic group displayed a significantly shorter operative time (93.3 versus 134.2 minutes; P < .009), lower estimated blood loss (100 versus 600 mL; P < .019), faster return to normal diet (1.6 versus 2.4 days; P < .039), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (3.8 versus. 5.6 days; P < .042). There were no statistical significant differences in 30-day mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for abdominal trauma, either blunt or penetrating, is safe and technically feasible in hemodynamically stable patients. We found in our study that laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, faster return to normal diet, and shorter hospital LOS.

A Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for the Management of Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to systematically review and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopy with laparotomy for abdominal trauma patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopy with laparotomy for abdominal trauma patients. Clinical endpoints included length of hospital stay, operation time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, time to postoperative exhaust, time to regular diet, time to out of bed, duration of postoperative pain, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rate, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, missed injuries, conversions to laparotomy, and cure rate.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies including 9058 patients with abdominal trauma were included. In these studies, laparoscopy was used as a screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic tool. Meta-analysis showed significant reductions in the incidence of postoperative complications (relative risk [RR] [95 % confidence interval (CI)] 0.37 [0.29-0.46]), perioperative mortality rate (RR 0.64; 95 % CI 0.52-0.80), operation time (mean difference [MD] [95 % CI] -19.93 min [-34.43 to 5.43]), length of hospital stay (MD -5.15 days; 95 % CI -6.80 to 3.50), amount of intraoperative blood loss (MD -141.33 ml; 95 % CI -260.99 to 21.67), time to postoperative exhaust (MD -5.32 h; 95 % CI -8.60 to 2.05), time to regular diet (MD -3.46 h; 95 % CI -6.31 to 0.61), time to out of bed (MD -23.51 h; 95 % CI -24.85 to 22.16), duration of postoperative pain (MD -21.34 h; 95 % CI -22.65 to 20.03), length of ICU stay (MD -1.89 days; 95 % CI -4.05 to 0.27) in patients with abdominal trauma treated with laparoscopy compared with laparotomy. The pooled incidence of postoperative complications, missed injuries, conversions, and perioperative mortality rate of laparoscopy among the case reports were 0.04 (95 % CI 0.03-0.06), 0.01 (95 % CI 0.01-0.02), 0.24 (95 % CI 0.20-0.28), 0.01(95 % CI 0.01-0.02), respectively. Cure rate of laparoscopy ranged from 46 to 95 % and the pooled rate was 0.76 (95 % CI 0.71-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is an effective way to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce the complications of hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal trauma. It is worth further popularization in clinical practice.

The Role of Laparoscopy in Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: Our Initial Experience

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy is a known approach in managing patients with penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT). However, multiple controversies exist on indications, contraindications, and its appropriateness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy in patients with PAT at Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital, Pretoria, South Africa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study. All patients with PAT managed by diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy during 2012-2013 were included. Recorded indications and contraindications, the mechanism of injury, the anatomical location of injury, intraoperative findings, reasons for conversion, and adverse outcomes (complications, reoperations and mortality) were analyzed in every case.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen patients were included. Stab injuries were sustained by 81 (71%) patients, and 33 (29%) patients sustained gunshot wounds (GSW) to the abdomen. The conversion rate was 7%. The operation was completed laparoscopically in 106 patients: 79 with stab wounds (74.5%) and 27 with GSW (25.5%). Laparoscopy was diagnostic for 44 patients (41.5%) and therapeutic for 62 patients (58.5%). In total, 13 patients (12%) required re-intervention, and 2 patients died (1.9%). The complications were not specific to the laparoscopic approach. No missed injuries were reported in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy in patients with PAT is an appropriate management in hemodynamically stable patients or those responsive to initial resuscitation. The location of injuries is not a limiting factor, although it affects placement of ports. The conversion is not a complication but rather the correct way of completing the operation in an appropriate situation. It should be considered in patients with extensive intraabdominal bleeding suggesting the possibility of major vessel injury, a significant deterioration of the patient, and the complexity of injuries requiring a prolonged laparoscopic procedure.

Through the 10-mm Looking Glass: Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery in Trauma

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly being used in trauma surgery as both a diagnostic and a therapeutic tool. However, significant debate regarding the accuracy, safety, and indications for minimally invasive surgery in trauma continues to impede widespread acceptance of these techniques among trauma surgeons.

METHOD

Herein, we report a contemporary review of the current role of both laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in modern trauma surgery. Literature search was performed using PubMed database and the following keywords: "Trauma," "Minimally Invasive Surgery," "Laparoscopy," and "Thoracoscopy."

RESULTS

Current recommendations advocate for the use of laparoscopy as a diagnostic tool in penetrating trauma for the diagnosis of diaphragm injuries and peritoneal violation. A significant body of research demonstrates that laparoscopy in select hemodynamically normal patients can significantly decrease nontherapeutic laparotomy rates and hospital costs and is highly sensitive and specific with very low missed injury rates, including small bowel injuries. Laparoscopic repairs to a wide breadth of abdominal and thoracic injuries have been reported with impressive results. Adherence to a standardized laparoscopic examination system and routine use of laparoscopy in elective or acute care practice strongly influence positive results with minimally invasive surgery in trauma. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is most commonly used for evaluation of diaphragm, evacuation of retained hemothorax, and management of ongoing bleeding post-trauma.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery does offer several advantages compared to traditional open surgery and should be considered as an additional tool in the trauma surgeon's armamentarium in the care of select injured patients.

Laparoscopy Decreases the Laparotomy Rate in Hemodynamically Stable Patients With Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Background. This study evaluated the use of laparoscopy in hemodynamically stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of hemodynamically stable blunt abdominal trauma patients. Patients admitted from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2006 (prior to the adoption of laparoscopy for patients with blunt abdominal trauma) were categorized as group A. Patients admitted from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2010, when laparoscopy was included in the algorithm for the management of blunt abdominal trauma, were categorized as group B. Results. There were 47 patients in group A and 57 patients in group B. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, injury severity score, and injuries requiring surgical intervention between the groups (all, P > .05). Patients in group B had a shorter hospital stay (11 days vs 21 days, P < .001) and shorter ICU stay (0 [0, 1] days vs 0 [0, 9] days, P = .029). In group A, 6 of 47 patients (12.8%) underwent a nontherapeutic laparotomy. In contrast, 9 of 57 patients (15.8%) in group B avoided a nontherapeutic laparotomy because no significant intra-abdominal findings warranting an intervention were disclosed by laparoscopy. The incidence of laparotomy for patients with significant injuries in group B was lower than in group A (4.2% vs 100.0%; P < .001). There was no difference in the complication rate between the groups. Conclusions. Laparoscopy is feasible and safe for the diagnosis and treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma and can reduce the laparotomy rate.

Value of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for abdominal stab wounds

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the use of laparoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment for hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal stab wounds.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the outcomes of 86 hemodynamically stable patients with suspected intra-abdominal injuries from abdominal stab wounds who underwent either exploratory laparotomy or diagnostic laparoscopy. Thirty-eight patients (group A) were treated before the adoption of laparoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for abdominal stabbing injuries at our hospital, and 48 patients (group B) were treated after. Demographic information, injury severity, operative findings, rates of nontherapeutic interventions, operation time, length of hospital stay, and morbidity of the two groups were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the demographics and injury severity between the two groups. Laparoscopy decreased the nontherapeutic laparotomy rate from 57.9% in group A to 0% in group B (P < 0.001). The accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy was 100% in group B. Patients in group B had a significantly shorter hospital stay (5.0 days versus 9.9 days; P < 0.001) and shorter operation time (90.7 min vs. 118.7 min; P = 0.019) than group A. For patients in group B with significant intra-abdominal injuries, therapeutic laparoscopy was successfully performed in 16 of 17 patients (94.1%), treating a total of 22 intra-abdominal injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is feasible and safe for the diagnosis and treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal stab wounds. It can reduce the nontherapeutic laparotomy rate and shorten the length of hospital stay.

Free abdominal fluid without obvious solid organ injury upon CT imaging: an actual problem or simply over-diagnosing?

Whereas a non-operative approach for hemodynamically stable patients with free intraabdominal fluid in the presence of solid organ injury is generally accepted, the presence of free fluid in the abdomen without evidence of solid organ injury not only presents a challenge for the treating emergency physician but also for the surgeon in charge. Despite recent advances in imaging modalities, with multi-detector computed tomography (CT) (with or without contrast agent) usually the imaging method of choice, diagnosis and interpretation of the results remains difficult. While some studies conclude that CT is highly accurate and relatively specific at diagnosing mesenteric and hollow viscus injury, others studies deem CT to be unreliable. These differences may in part be due to the experience and the interpretation of the radiologist and/or the treating physician or surgeon.A search of the literature has made it apparent that there is no straightforward answer to the question what to do with patients with free intraabdominal fluid on CT scanning but without signs of solid organ injury. In hemodynamically unstable patients, free intraabdominal fluid in the absence of solid organ injury usually mandates immediate surgical intervention. For patients with blunt abdominal trauma and more than just a trace of free intraabdominal fluid or for patients with signs of peritonitis, the threshold for a surgical exploration - preferably by a laparoscopic approach - should be low. Based on the available information, we aim to provide the reader with an overview of the current literature with specific emphasis on diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to this problem and suggest a possible algorithm, which might help with the adequate treatment of such patients.

Standard examination system for laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

The high missed occult small bowel injuries (SBI) associated with laparoscopy in trauma (LIT) is a major reason why some surgeons still preclude LIT today. No standardized laparoscopic examination for evaluation of the peritoneal cavity is described for trauma. The objective of this article is to verify if a systematic standardized laparoscopic approach could correctly identify SBI in the peritoneal cavity for penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT).

METHODS

Victims with PAT were evaluated in a prospective, nonrandomized study. A total of 75 hemodynamically stable patients with suspected abdominal injuries were operated by LIT and converted to laparotomy if criteria were met: SBI and lesions to blind spot zones--retroperitoneal hematoma, injuries to segments VI or VII of the liver, or injuries to the posterior area of the spleen. Inclusion criteria were equivocal evidence of abdominal injuries or peritoneal penetration; systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg and <3 L of IV fluids in the first hour of admission; Glasgow Coma Scale score >12; and age >12 years. Exclusion criteria were back injuries; pregnancy; previous laparotomy; and chronic cardiorespiratory disease.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were males and there were 38 stab wounds and 37 gunshot wounds. No SBI was missed, but a pancreatic lesion was undiagnosed due to a retroperitoneal hematoma. Twenty patients (26.6%) were converted. Unnecessary laparotomies were avoided in 73.33%. Therapeutic LIT was possible in 22.7%. Accuracy was 98.66% with 97.61% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard systematic laparoscopic exploration was 100% effective to detect SBI in the peritoneal cavity. Conversion from LIT to laparotomy should be done if injuries to blind spot zones are found which are poorly evaluated by LIT. Therapeutic LIT is feasible in PAT.

Laparoscopic repair of penetrating injury of the diaphragm: an experience from a district hospital

In this study we review our experience in using laparoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in dealing with penetrating diaphragmatic injuries due to stab wounds and look at the feasibility of using this procedure in other similar institutions. Thirty patients, all of whom were males 20-30 years of age, presented to the surgical emergency unit of our hospital with upper abdominal and lower chest wall stab wounds between 01-05-1998 and 30-11-2006. Diagnosis of the diaphragm injury was either obvious with omentum herniating through the chest wall, or occult with confirmation of the injury at laparoscopy. All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy, which resulted in identification and efficient treatment of eight patients with diaphragmatic injury, and thereby laparotomy was avoided. The procedure converted to open surgery in one patient because of a small left-sided colonic tear. Laparoscopy is an efficient tool for the diagnosis and management of diaphragmatic injuries. It should be used routinely instead of exploratory laparotomy in haemodynamically stable patients with penetrating lower chest injuries.