Analysis of laparoscopy in trauma

Trauma Laparoscopy: Time Efficient, Cost Effective, and Safe

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy has demonstrated improved outcomes in abdominal surgery; however, its use in trauma has been less compelling. In this study, we hypothesize that laparoscopy may be observed to have lower costs and complications with similar operative times compared to open exploration in appropriately selected patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed adult patients undergoing abdominal exploration after blunt and penetrating trauma at our level 1 center from 2008 to 2020. Data included mechanism, operative time, length of stay (LOS), hospital charges, and complications. Patients were grouped as follows: therapeutic and nontherapeutic diagnostic laparoscopy and celiotomy. Therapeutic procedures included suture repair of hollow viscus organs or diaphragm, evacuation of hematoma, and hemorrhage control of solid organ or mesenteric injury. Unstable patients, repair of major vascular injuries or resection of an organ or bowel were excluded.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-six patients were included with comparable demographics. Diagnostic laparoscopy had shorter operative times, LOS, and lower hospital charges compared to diagnostic celiotomy controls. Similarly, therapeutic laparoscopy had shorter LOS and lower hospital costs compared to therapeutic celiotomy. The operative time was not statistically different in this comparison. Patients in the celiotomy groups had more postoperative complications. The differences in operative time, LOS and hospital charges were not statistically significant in the diagnostic laparoscopy compared to diagnostic laparoscopy converted to diagnostic celiotomy group, nor in the therapeutic laparoscopy compared to the diagnostic laparoscopy converted to therapeutic laparoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy can be used safely in penetrating and blunt abdominal trauma. In this cohort, laparoscopy was observed to have shorter operative times and LOS with lower hospital charges and fewer complications.

Performance of three predictive scores to avoid delayed diagnosis of significant blunt bowel and mesenteric injury: A 12-year retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Avoiding missed diagnosis and therapeutic delay for significant blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries (sBBMIs) after trauma is still challenging despite the widespread use of computed tomography (CT). Several scoring tools aiming at reducing this risk have been published. The purpose of the present work was to assess the incidence of delayed (>24 hours) diagnosis for sBBMI patients and to compare the predictive performance of three previously published scores using clinical, radiological, and laboratory findings: the Bowel Injury Prediction Score (BIPS) and the scores developed by Raharimanantsoa Score (RS) and by Faget Score (FS).

METHODS

A population-based retrospective observational cohort study was conducted; it included adult trauma patients after road traffic crashes admitted to Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, between 2008 and 2019 (n = 1,258) with reliable information about sBBMI status (n = 1,164) and for whom all items for score calculation were available (n = 917). The three scores were retrospectively applied on all patients to assess their predictive performance.

RESULTS

The incidence of sBBMI after road traffic crash was 3.3% (38 of 1,164), and in 18% (7 of 38), there was a diagnostic and treatment delay of more than 24 hours. The diagnostic performances of the FS, the RS, and the BIPS to predict sBBMI, expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.7-97.9%), 89.2% (95% CI, 83.2-95.3%), and 87.6% (95% CI, 81.8-93.3%) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The present study confirms that diagnostic delays for sBBMI still occur despite the widespread use of abdominal CT. When CT findings during the initial assessment are negative or equivocal for sBBMI, using a score may be helpful to select patients for early diagnostic laparoscopy. The FS had the best individual diagnostic performance. However, the BIPS or the RS, relying on clinical and laboratory variables, may be helpful to select patients for early diagnostic laparoscopy when there are unspecific CT signs of bowel or mesenteric injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

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.

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.

Predictors of Clinical Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Colectomy for Traumatic Injury

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy following traumatic injury has been increasingly utilized, but open resection remains the standard of care. Therefore, identifying appropriate candidates for laparoscopy is critically important. This study's purpose was to identify predictors of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy following traumatic injury.

METHODS

The National Trauma Databank was queried for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy within 48 hours of admission between 2007 and 2015. Patient, injury, and management characteristics were abstracted. Multivariable regression analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics and identified significant predictors of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 581 patients satisfied inclusion criteria. The median age was 31 years, 465 (80%) were male, and 321 (55%) sustained penetrating injuries. An ostomy was created in 143 (25%) cases. Multivariable logistic regression showed that significant predictors of mortality included a falling mechanism (odds ratio [OR] 104.917, P = .002), admission tachycardia (OR 5.823, P = .001), admission hypotension (OR 26.089, P < .001), and multi-system injuries like head (OR 1.587, P = .008) and thoracic (OR 1.627, P = .001) injuries. Significant predictors of unplanned reoperation included transverse (OR 7.657, P = .033) and left (OR 17.155, P = .014) colon resections, obesity (OR 24.407, P = .016), and chronic respiratory disease (OR 32.963, P = .018). Ostomy creation was significantly associated with neither mortality nor unplanned reoperation.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that readily identifiable preoperative characteristics are significantly associated with differences in clinical outcomes. Additional research is required to determine if varying treatment based on these qualities can improve outcomes.

Laparoscopy in Emergency: Why Not? Advantages of Laparoscopy in Major Emergency: A Review

A laparoscopic approach is suggested with the highest grade of recommendation for acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcers, acute appendicitis, gynaecological disorders, and non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). To date, the main qualities of laparoscopy for these acute surgical scenarios are clearly stated: quicker surgery, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. For the remaining surgical emergencies, as well as for abdominal trauma, the role of laparoscopy is still a matter of debate. Patients might benefit from a laparoscopic approach only if performed by experienced teams and surgeons which guarantee a high standard of care. More precisely, laparoscopy can limit damage to the tissue and could be effective for the reduction of the overall amount of cell debris, which is a result of the intensity with which the immune system reacts to the injury and the following symptomatology. In fact, these fragments act as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). DAMPs, as well as pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), are recognised by both surface and intracellular receptors of the immune cells and activate the cascade which, in critically ill surgical patients, is responsible for a deranged response. This may result in the development of progressive and multiple organ dysfunctions, manifesting with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coagulopathy, liver dysfunction and renal failure. In conclusion, none of the emergency surgical scenarios preclude laparoscopy, provided that the surgical tactic could ensure sufficient cleaning of the abdomen in addition to resolving the initial tissue damage caused by the “trauma”.

Impact of laparoscopy on the perioperative outcome of penetrating abdominal trauma management during the post revolution period

BACKGROUND

Penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) poses a significant challenge to trauma surgeons. Laparotomy is still the most popular procedure for managing PAT but has high morbidity and mortality rates. Presently, laparoscopy aims to provide equal or superior visualization compared to open approaches but with less morbidity, postoperative discomfort, and recovery time. The aim of this research is to assess the impact of laparoscopy on the management of PAT.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study carried out at the Emergency Hospital of Mansoura University/Egypt and at King Faisal Medical Complex, Taif/KSA from September 2014 to September 2018. All hemodynamically stable patients with PAT who were managed by laparoscopy were included in this study. Data extracted for analysis included demographic information, criteria of abdominal stabs, type of management, and perioperative outcome.

RESULTS

Forty patients were recruited in this research and the male-to-female ratio was 5.6:1. The mean age of the patients was 31.4 ± 12.318 years. During the laparoscopic procedure, no peritoneal penetration was observed in 4 patients (negative laparoscopy), while peritoneal penetration was observed in the remaining 36 patients. No visceral injuries were noted in 2 patients of the 36 patients with peritoneal penetration, while the remaining 34 patients had intra-abdominal injuries.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy performed on hemodynamically stable trauma patients was found to be safe and technically feasible. It also reduced negative and non-therapeutic laparotomies and offered paramount therapeutic and diagnostic advantages for traumatic diaphragmatic injuries.

Abdominal Self-Stabbing: An Uncommon Type of Sharp Abdominal Trauma

Abdominal self-stabbing, a type of sharp abdominal trauma, is a rare form of attempted suicide. Such cases are not commonly seen in the emergency department, but a prompt and well-reasoned decision is essential in the management of these patients. We report a case of a SI-ASW and a literature review to show the management of the aforementioned condition.

Evaluation of diagnostic laparoscopy for penetrating abdominal injuries: About 131 anterior abdominal stab wound

BACKGROUND

The management of hemodynamically stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASW) is debated. Mini-invasive techniques using laparoscopy and non-operative management (NOM) have reduced the rate of nontherapeutic laparotomies after AASW leading to unnecessary morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine with a systematic diagnostic laparoscopy of peritoneal penetration (PP), patients who do not require abdominal exploration in the management of stable patient with an AASW.

METHODS

All patients with AASW were retrospectively recorded from 2006 to 2018. Criteria of inclusion were AASW patients who underwent a systematic diagnostic laparoscopy. Criteria of exclusion were patients with an evisceration, impaling, clinical peritonitis, and hemodynamic instability. If no PP was detected, laparoscopy was terminated. If defects of peritoneum were found, a laparotomy was performed looking for diagnosis and treatment of intra-abdominal injuries.

RESULTS

On 131 AASW patients, 35 underwent immediate emergency laparotomy, 96 underwent diagnostic laparoscopy, 47 were positive (PP) and had an intra-abdominal exploration by laparotomy, 32 (68.1%) had intra-abdominal injuries which required treatment. All patients with an intra-abdominal injury had a positive diagnostic laparoscopy. For the 49 patients with a negative laparoscopy, the mean hospital stay was 1.6 days with ambulatory care for some patients. No patient presented a delayed injury. Non-therapeutic laparotomy rate was 15.6%. For patients who did not have an intra-abdominal injury the morbidity rate was low (3%).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that diagnostic laparoscopy was safe, with a low duration of hospitalization, a possible ambulatory care and had an excellent ability to screen the patients who did not need a abdominal exploration. This management can avoid many unnecessary laparotomies with an acceptable rate of negative laparotomy, without any delayed diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries and with a low morbidity rate.

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.

Are we doing too many non-therapeutic laparotomies in trauma? An analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank

BACKGROUND

Exploratory laparotomy (EL) has been the definitive diagnostic and therapeutic modality for operative abdominal trauma in the US. Recently, many trauma centers have started using diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in stable trauma patients in an effort to reduce the incidence of non-therapeutic laparotomy (NL). We aim to evaluate the incidence of NL in the trauma population in the US and compare the outcomes between DL and NL.

METHODS

Using ICD-9 codes, the National Trauma Data Bank (2010-2015) was queried for patients undergoing any abdominal surgical intervention. Patients were divided into two groups: diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) and exploratory laparotomy (EL). Hemodynamically unstable patients on arrival and patients with abbreviated injury score (AIS) > 3 were excluded. Patients in EL group without any codes for gastrointestinal, diaphragmatic, hepatic, splenic, vascular, or urological procedures were considered to have undergone NL. After excluding patients who were converted to open from the DL group, multivariate regression models were used to analyze the outcomes of DL vs NL group with respect to mortality, length of stay, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 3197 patients underwent NL vs 1323 patients who underwent DL. Compared to DL group, the NL group were older (mean age: 35 vs. 31, P < 0.01). Rate of penetrating injury was 77% vs 86% for patients in NL vs DL. On multivariate analysis, NL was associated with increased mortality (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.1-9.7), higher rate of complications (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.3), and a longer hospital stay (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.1-3.5). NL was also associated with higher rates of pneumonia, VTE, ARDS, and cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSION

With increasing experience in minimally invasive surgery, DL should be a part of the armamentarium of trauma surgeons. This study supports that in well-selected trauma patients DL has favorable outcomes compared to NL. These findings warrant further investigation.

Use of Laparoscopy in Pediatric Blunt and Spleen Injury: An Unexpectedly Common Procedure After Cessation of Bleeding

Background: Recently, several series have reported the use of laparoscopy in pediatric trauma, most commonly for bowel and pancreatic injury within the first 12 or 24 hours. During a multicenter trial at 10 Level 1 pediatric trauma centers, selective use of laparoscopy in children with blunt liver or spleen injury (BLSI) was noted. A secondary analysis was performed to describe the frequency and application of these procedures to pediatric BLSI. Patients and Methods: Prospective data were collected on all children age ≤18 years with BLSI presenting to 1 of 10 pediatric trauma centers. An unplanned secondary analysis of children who underwent laparoscopy was done. Results: Of 1008 children with BLSI, 59 initially underwent a laparotomy, but 11 underwent a laparoscopic procedure during their index admission; 1 of these was 22 hours postlaparotomy and 2 others were laparoscopy-assisted and converted to laparotomy. Median age of patients undergoing a laparoscopic procedure was 11.5 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 5.8-16.4). Laparoscopy was performed at 7 of the 10 centers. Median time to surgery was 42 hours (IQR: 8-96). Most patients had a liver (n = 6) injury; 4 had spleen and 1 had both. One of the laparoscopies was for pancreatic surgery, and 2 were for bowel injury (but converted to open). Conclusions: Laparoscopy was utilized in 16% of children requiring abdominal surgery after BLSI, with a median time of 42 hours postinjury. Uses included diagnostic laparoscopy, drain placement, laparoscopic pancreatectomy, and washout of hematoma.

"Pop in a scope": attempt to decrease the rate of unnecessary nontherapeutic laparotomies in hemodynamically stable patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating injuries

BACKGROUND

Management of patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating injuries is challenging. Thoracoabdominal penetrating trauma may harbor hollow viscus injuries in both thoracic and abdominal cavities and occult diaphragmatic lesions. While radiological tests show poor diagnostic performance in these situations, evaluation by laparoscopy is highly sensitive and specific. Furthermore, minimally invasive surgery may avoid unnecessary laparotomies, despite concerns regarding complication and missed injury rates. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the diagnostic and therapeutic performance of laparoscopy in stable patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating injuries.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of hemodynamically stable patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating wounds was managed by laparoscopy. We collected data regarding the profile of the patients, the presence of diaphragmatic injury, perioperative complications, and the conversion rate. Preoperative imaging tests were compared to laparoscopy in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were included, and 26 (84%) were victims of a stab wound. Mean age was 32 years. Ninety-three percent were male. Diaphragmatic lesions were present in 18 patients (58%), and 13 (42%) had associated injuries. There were no missed injuries and no conversions. Radiography and computerized tomography yielded an accuracy of 52% and 75%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is a safe diagnostic and therapeutic procedure in stable patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating wound, with low complication rate, and may avoid unnecessary laparotomies. The poor diagnostic performance of preoperative imaging exams supports routine laparoscopic evaluation of the diaphragm to exclude injuries in these patients.

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.

A new tailored protocol based on laparoscopy in the management of abdominal shotgun injuries: a case-series study

PURPOSE

Abdominal shotgun injuries derive their significance from the wide range of injuries they cause. The management of this type of injury has been continuously evolving. Despite the ongoing incorporation of laparoscopy in management of abdominal trauma, there is no definite protocol raising the role of laparoscopy in such injuries. In this study, we outlined a tailored protocol in the management of penetrating abdominal shotgun injuries differing from the previous protocols which comprised either mandatory exploration or non-operative management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This case-series study included patients who attended to our emergency department with a shotgun injury involving the abdomen between December 2014 and October 2016. Only stable patients with no clinical signs of surgical abdomen, in combination with CT evidence of penetrating intra-abdominal pellets, were subjected to laparoscopic exploration in this study.

RESULTS

Thirty patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. During laparoscopy, ten patients were designated as positive for injuries. No missed injuries were identified. Two of the cases identified as positive by laparoscopy needed no further management while the remaining eight patients warranted laparotomy. Only one of these eight patients turned out to have a non-therapeutic exploration. Consequently, laparoscopy in the management of these injuries had an overall accuracy of 96.7%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 95.7%, positive predictive value of 87.5% and negative predictive value of 100% with highly significant p value < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

A tailored protocol relying on the use of laparoscopy in the management of stable patients with CT evidence of penetrating abdominal shotgun injuries is safe and helps to cut down the number of non-therapeutic laparotomies with consequent decrease of complications.

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.

Use of laparoscopic colectomy increasing in trauma: comparison of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy

Laparoscopy accounts for > 70% of general surgical cases. Given the increased use of laparoscopy in emergent colorectal disease, we hypothesized that there would be an increased use of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in trauma patients. In addition, we hypothesized increased length of stay (LOS) and mortality in trauma patients undergoing open colectomy (OC) vs. LC. This was a retrospective analysis using the National Trauma Data Bank (2008-2015). We included adult patients undergoing LC or OC. A multivariable logistic regression model was used for determining risk of LOS and mortality. We identified 19,788 (96.8%) patients undergoing OC and 644 (3.2%) who underwent LC. There was a 21-fold increased number of patients that underwent LC over the study period (p < 0.05), with approximately 119 per 10,000 trauma patients undergoing LC. The most common operation was a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (27.5%). LC patients had a lower median injury severity score (ISS) (16 vs. 17, p < 0.001). There was no difference in LOS (p = 0.14) or mortality (p = 0.44) between the two groups. This remained true in patients with isolated colorectal injury. The use of LC has increased 21-fold from 2008 to 2015, with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy being the most common procedure performed. There was no difference in LOS, in-hospital complications, or mortality between the two groups. We suggest that LC should be considered in stable adult trauma patients undergoing colectomy. However, future prospective research is needed to help determine which trauma patients may benefit from LC.

Avoiding delayed diagnosis of significant blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries: Can a scoring tool make the difference? A 7-year retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Significant blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries (sBBMI) are frequently missed despite the widespread use of computed tomography (CT). Early treatment improves the outcome related to these injuries. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of sBBMI, the incidence of delayed diagnosis and to test the performance of the Bowel Injury Prediction Score (BIPS), determined by the white blood cell (WBC) count, presence or absence of abdominal tenderness and CT grade of mesenteric injury.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-centre, registry-based retrospective cohort study, screening all consecutive trauma patients admitted to Lausanne University Hospital Trauma Centre from 2008 to 2015 after a road traffic accident. All patients with reliable information about the presence or absence of sBBMI who underwent abdominal CT and for whom calculation of the BIPS was possible were included for analysis. The incidence of delayed (>24h after admission) diagnosis in the patient group with sBBMI was determined and the diagnostic performance of the BIPS for sBBMI was assessed.

RESULTS

For analysis, 766 patients with reliable information about the presence or absence of sBBMI were included. The prevalence of sBBMI was 3.1% (24/766). In 24% (5/21) of stable trauma patients undergoing CT, a diagnostic delay of more than 24h occurred. Abdominal tenderness (p<0.0001) and CT grade ≥4 (p<0.0001) were associated with sBBMI, whereas CT grade 4 alone (p=0.93) and WBC count ≥17G/l (p=0.30) were not. A BIPS ≥2 had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 67-99), specificity of 89% (95% CI, 86-91), positive likelihood ratio of 8 (95% CI, 6.1-10), negative likelihood ratio of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.03-0.44), positive predictive value (PPV) of 19% (95% CI, 15-24) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.7% (95% CI, 98.7-99.9). CT alone identified 79% (15/19) and the BIPS 89% (17/19) of patients with sBBMI (p=0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic delays in patients with sBBMI are common (24%), despite the routine use of abdominal CT. Application of the BIPS on the present cohort would have led to a high number of non-therapeutic abdominal explorations without identifying significantly more sBBMI early than CT alone.

Turbulent tackle: a novel surgical approach to a rugby-related jejunal perforation

Viscus perforation in the context of blunt-force abdominal trauma is a rarity. Within a sporting context, it is especially rare. However, the increasing physicality observed in rugby union, both in the amateur and professional setting, has resulted in a higher rate of serious injury. We report a novel laparoscopic surgical approach to the management of a traumatic jejunal perforation sustained on the playing field in a previously fit and healthy 28-year-old.

Laparoscopy in Blunt Abdominal Trauma: for Whom? When?and Why?

The management of blunt abdominal trauma has evolved over time. While laparotomy is the standard of care in hemodynamically unstable patients, stable patients are usually treated by non-operative management (NOM), incorporating adjuncts such as interventional radiology. However, although NOM has shown good results in solid organ injuries, other lesions, namely those involving the hollow viscus, diaphragm, and mesentery, do not qualify for this approach and need surgical exploration. Laparoscopy can substantially reduce additional surgical aggression. It has both diagnostic and therapeutic potential and, when negative, may reduce the number of unnecessary laparotomies. Although some studies have shown promising results on the use of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma, randomized controlled studies are lacking. Laparoscopy requires adequate training and experience as well as sufficient staffing and equipment.

The Use of Laparoscopy in the Management of Trauma Patients: Brief review

Laparoscopy is one of the most effective intervention modalities, resulting in improved outcomes for major surgeries. In the past decade, the laparoscopic approach in trauma patients has shown better diagnostic outcomes than traditional laparotomies. Furthermore, this approach is cost-effective, significantly reduces the length of hospital stay and contributes to reduced complication rates. However, the use of laparoscopies in trauma cases is generally restricted to patients with normal haemodynamic parameters and is contraindicated for individuals with head injuries. With advances in knowledge and improved training, laparoscopies can also be used in the treatment of other conditions, such as diaphragmatic injuries and organ lacerations. This article briefly reviews the extent of laparoscopy use and its significance in the management of trauma patients.

Minimally invasive is maximally effective: Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for penetrating abdominal injuries

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic techniques have evolved, allowing increased capabilities within most subspecialties of general surgery, but have failed to gain traction managing injured patients. We hypothesized that laparoscopy is effective in the diagnosis and treatment of penetrating abdominal injuries.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing abdominal exploration following penetrating trauma at our Level 1 trauma center during a 6-year period from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2013. Demographic and resuscitation data were obtained from our trauma registry. Charts were reviewed for operative details, hospital course, and complications. Hospital length of stay (LOS) and complications were primary end points. Patients were classified as having nontherapeutic diagnostic laparoscopy (DL), nontherapeutic diagnostic celiotomy (DC), therapeutic laparoscopy (TL), or therapeutic celiotomy (TC). TL patients were case-matched 2:1 with TC patients having similar intra-abdominal injuries.

RESULTS

A total of 518 patients, including 281 patients (55%) with stab wounds and 237 patients (45%) with gunshot wounds, were identified. Celiotomy was performed in 380 patients (73%), laparoscopy in 138 (27%), with 44 (32%) converted to celiotomy. Nontherapeutic explorations were compared including 70 DLs and 46 DCs with similar injury severity. LOS was shorter in DLs compared with DCs (1 day vs. 4 days, p < 0.001). There were no missed injuries. Therapeutic explorations were compared by matching all TL patients 2:1 to TC patients with similar type and severity of injuries. Twenty-four patients underwent TL compared with 48 TC patients in the case matched group. LOS was shorter in the TL group than in the TC group (4 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.001). Wound infections were more common with open exploration (10.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), and more patients developed ileus or small bowel obstruction after open exploration (9.4% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is safe and accurate in penetrating abdominal injuries. The use of laparoscopy resulted in shorter hospitalization, fewer postoperative wound infection and ileus complications, as well as no missed injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

Laparoscopic surgery in abdominal trauma: a single center review of a 7-year experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery has greatly improved surgical outcome in many areas of abdominal surgery. But many concerns of safety have limited its application in abdominal trauma. We hypothesized that laparoscopy could be safe and efficacious in treatment of patients with abdominal trauma, and reduce the laparotomy related complications (i.e. wound infection, pain, or long hospital stay) as avoiding unnecessary laparotomy.

METHODS

From January 2006 to August 2012, a total of 111 patients underwent emergent surgical exploration (laparoscopic, 41; open laparotomy, 70) in Andong General Hospital. Of the 41 patients subjected to laparoscopy, 30 patients had suffered blunt trauma, the remaining 11 patients had sustained penetrating trauma. 31 patients were treated exclusively by laparoscopy and 10 patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted surgery.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 18%. Major complication was none without postoperative mortality. Comparing laparoscopic surgery with open laparotomy, lesser wound infection, early gas passage, and shorter hospital stay. Otherwise operative times were similar, and neither approach was complicated by missed injury or postoperative intra-abdominal abscess.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery can be performed safely whether injuries are blunt or penetrating, given hemodynamic stability and proper technique. Patients may thus benefit from the shorter hospital stays, greater postoperative comfort (less pain), quicker recoveries, and low morbidity/mortality rates that laparoscopy affords.

Advances in minimally invasive surgery in pediatric patients

Surgery has changed dramatically over the last several decades. The emergence of MIS has allowed pediatric surgeons to manage critically ill neonates, children, and adolescents with improved outcomes in pain, postoperative course, cosmesis, and return to normal activity. Procedures that were once thought to be too difficult to attempt or even contraindicated in pediatric patients in many instances are now the standard of care. New and emerging techniques, such as single-incision laparoscopy, endoscopy-assisted surgery, robotic surgery, and techniques yet to be developed, all hold and reveal the potential for even further advancement in the management of these patients. The future of MIS in pediatrics is exciting; as long as our primary focus remains centered on developing techniques that limit morbidity and maximize positive outcomes for young patients and their families, the possibilities are both promising and infinite.

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 in the acute abdomen

Laparoscopy has become a routine procedure in the management of acute abdominal disease and can be considered both an excellent therapeutic and additional diagnostic tool in selected cases. However, a high level of expertise in laparoscopic and emergency surgery is required. Hemodynamic instability, huge abdominal distension, fecal peritonitis and perforated cancer are relative contraindications for the laparoscopic approach. In recent years, abdominal emergencies have increasingly been managed successfully by laparoscopy. In acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and perforated peptic ulcer, randomized controlled trials have proven that the laparoscopic approach is as safe and as effective as open surgery, with fewer complications and a quicker postoperative recovery. Other indications such as blunt and penetrating trauma to the abdomen, small bowel occlusion and perforated diverticular disease are under debate, indicating that more randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery are still necessary.

The utility of laparoscopic evaluation of the parietal peritoneum in the management of anterior abdominal stab wounds

BACKGROUND

Trauma centres vary in their approaches to managing stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASWs), with no approach yet proven superior. We sought to evaluate the performance of screening laparoscopy (i.e., parietal peritoneal penetration or not) in determining which patients should undergo laparotomy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series study, including all patients with an AASW who presented to U.C. Davis Medical Center from January 2003 through March 2009. We collected data from medical records using a standardised, pre-tested instrument. Among laparoscopically screened cases, we determined the test characteristics of peritoneal penetration for detecting intra-abdominal injury. We sub-classified injuries as "requiring treatment" (e.g., full-thickness enterotomy or active haemorrhage) or not.

RESULTS

Of 358 patients with AASWs, 163 underwent screening laparoscopy. Seventy-eight of the 163 (48%) had no peritoneal penetration and six (4%) had peritoneal penetration but a low-risk wound; none of these 84 underwent laparotomy nor had a missed injury. Of 79 patients with peritoneal penetration who underwent laparotomy, 61 had an intra-abdominal injury, of whom 42 were treated intraoperatively. Among these 42, 30 had an injury "requiring treatment." The PPV of peritoneal penetration for an injury requiring treatment was 38% (30/79) (95% CI 27-50%), NPV 100% (84/84) (95% CI 95-100%), sensitivity 100% (30/30) (95% CI 88-100%), and specificity 63% (84/133) (95% CI 54-71%). The negative and positive likelihood ratios were 0 (95% CI 0-0.4) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.2-3.4), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening laparoscopic evaluation of the parietal peritoneum results in a negligible rate of missed injury and an approximately 40% rate of finding an injury requiring treatment.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in pediatric trauma: a collective review

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been utilized in selective trauma patients, there a relative paucity of literature on its role in both blunt and penetrating trauma in the pediatric population. Our purpose is to review the current literature on the role of MIS in abdominal and thoracic pediatric trauma. A review of the literature, indications, risks, and benefits of MIS in trauma will be presented. Relevant literature was obtained from use of the PubMed database.

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.

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.

Is laparoscopy equal to laparotomy in detecting and treating small bowel injuries in a porcine model?

AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for diagnosing and treating small bowel injuries (SBIs) in a porcine model.

METHODS: Twenty-eight female pigs were anesthetized and laid in the left recumbent position. The SBI model was established by shooting at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen. The pigs were then randomized into either the laparotomy group or the laparoscopy group. All pigs underwent routine exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy to evaluate the abdominal injuries, particularly the types, sites, and numbers of SBIs. Traditional open surgery or therapeutic laparoscopy was then performed. All pigs were kept alive within the observational period (postoperative 72 h). The postoperative recovery of each pig was carefully observed.

RESULTS: The vital signs of all pigs were stable within 1-2 h after shooting and none of the pigs died from gunshot wounds or SBIs immediately. The SBI model was successfully established in all pigs and definitively diagnosed with single or multiple SBIs either by exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy. Compared with exploratory laparotomy, laparoscopy took a significantly longer time for diagnosis (41.27 ± 12.04 min vs 27.64 ± 13.32 min, P = 0.02), but the time for therapeutic laparoscopy was similar to that of open surgery. The length of incision was significantly reduced in the laparoscopy group compared with the laparotomy group (5.27 ± 1.86 cm vs 15.73 ± 1.06 cm, P < 0.01). In the final post-mortem examination 72 h after surgery, both laparotomy and laparoscopy offered a definitive diagnosis with no missed injuries. Postoperative complications occurred in four cases (three following laparotomy and one following laparoscopy, P = 0.326). The average recovery period for bowel function, vital appearance, and food re-intake after laparoscopy was 10.36 ± 4.72 h, 14.91 ± 3.14 h, and 15.00 ± 7.11 h, respectively. All of these were significantly shorter than after laparotomy (21.27 ± 10.17 h, P = 0.004; 27.82 ± 9.61 h, P < 0.001; and 24.55 ± 9.72 h, respectively, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION: Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy offers equivalent efficacy for diagnosing and treating SBIs, and reduces postoperative complications as well as recovery period.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for traumatic gallbladder perforation

In trauma, laparoscopic surgery is commonly utilized as a diagnostic rather than therapeutic measure (1). Its use is often negated because of exigency or limitations in visibility due to haemorrhage. In the present case, a 35-year-old male was involved in a motor vehicle collision and arrived haemodynamically stable with abdominal pain. Abdominal CT revealed liver laceration and active contrast extravasation near the gallbladder fossa. Although angiography with embolization would normally be used, exploratory laparoscopy was performed because of concern for gallbladder injury. The gallbladder was found to be perforated and nearly completely avulsed from the fossa. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed and the patient recovered uneventfully. Gallbladder perforation after trauma is typically an incidental finding during operation for haemorrhagic shock or other indication. Early diagnosis and swift surgical intervention are required, usually via laparotomy. However, when diagnosed preoperatively in the stable trauma victim, gallbladder perforation can be treated successfully with laparoscopy.

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.

Laparoscopic management of left thoracoabdominal stab wounds: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Left thoracoabdominal stab wounds (LTSWs) leading to diaphragmatic injuries can cause serious morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis and treatment of LTSWs are controversial. This study investigated the reliability of laparoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of diaphragmatic lacerations in hemodynamically stable patients with an LTSW, hypothesizing that laparoscopy is sufficient for diagnosing and treating diaphragmatic injury after an LTSW.

METHODS

This study included 36 cases of LTSWs with no hemodynamic instability or abdominal tenderness seen between June 2002 and June 2007. After systemic examination and resuscitation of the patients, chest x-ray and focused assessment with sonography for trauma were carried out and then laparoscopic exploration was performed in all cases.

RESULTS

Of the 36 cases, 36.1% (n=13) had injuries to the diaphragm and 53.8% (7/13) had associated intraabdominal injuries. Nine (69.2%) of the patients with diaphragmatic injuries, but no hollow organ injuries, were repaired through laparoscopy. The hemopneumothorax was found in 33.3% (n=12) of the patients. No relationship was seen between diaphragmatic injuries and the location of the LTSW and existence of hemopneumothorax.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparotomy was required in only 11.1% (4/36) of the cases with LTSWs and 30.8% (4/13) of the cases with diaphragmatic injury. Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy was a sufficient and necessary surgical procedure in cases with a hemodynamically stable LTSW, when emergency surgery (laparotomy or thoracotomy) was not necessary.

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.