Laparoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of acute abdominal pain

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

The role of laparoscopy in the propaedeutics of gynecological diagnosis1

Purpose

To evaluate agreement between pre- and post-laparoscopy gynecological diagnosis in order to demonstrate the rationality of this minimally invasive technique use in gynecological propaedeutics.

Methods

Retrospective chart review study conducted between March 2010 and October 2016 based on a convenience sample. 315 patients undergoing surgical laparoscopy at the Center of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Family Planning of Botucatu Medical School/UNESP. Pre- and postoperative diagnoses were compared by the diagnosis agreement test considering the proportions of events.

Results

Laparoscopy contributed to diagnosis in 59.6% of infertility cases (P>0.05), in 93.7% of chronic pelvic pain of undetermined origin (P<0.01) and conclusively elucidated the diagnosis of acute abdomen and the ruling out of tubo-ovarian abcess (P<0.05). Laparoscopy also increased the diagnosis of pelvic-abdominal adhesions in 76.7% (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The use of laparoscopy considerably contributed to diagnostic elucidation, especially in cases of undetermined chronic pelvic pain.

Guideline for the diagnostic pathway in patients with acute abdominal pain

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic practice for acute abdominal pain at the Emergency Department varies widely and is mostly based on doctor's preferences. We aimed at developing an evidence-based guideline for the diagnostic pathway of patients with abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin.

METHODS

All available international literature on patients with acute abdominal pain was identified and graded according to their methodological quality by members of the multidisciplinary steering group. A guideline was synthetized, providing evidence-based recommendations together with considerations based on expertise of group members, patient preferences, costs, availability of facilities, and organizational aspects.

DEFINITION

Uniform terminology is needed in patients with acute abdominal pain to avoid difficulty in interpretation and ease comparison of findings between studies. We propose the use of the following definition for acute abdominal pain: pain of nontraumatic origin with a maximum duration of 5 days. Clinical diagnosis: Clinical evaluation is advised to differentiate between urgent and nonurgent causes. The diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment is insufficient to identify the correct diagnosis but can discriminate between urgent and nonurgent causes. Patients suspected of nonurgent diagnoses can safely be reevaluated the next day. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the differences in accuracy between residents and specialists. No conclusions can be drawn on the influence of a gynecological consultation. In patients suspected of an urgent condition, additional imaging is justified. CRP and WBC count alone are insufficient to discriminate urgent from nonurgent diagnoses. Diagnostic imaging: There is no place for conventional radiography in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain due to the lack of added value on top of clinical assessment. Computed tomography leads to the highest sensitivity and specificity in patients with acute abdominal pain. Positive predictive value of ultrasound is comparable with CT and therefore preferred as the first imaging modality due to the downsides of computed tomography; negative or inconclusive ultrasound is followed by CT. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the added value of a diagnostic laparoscopy in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain. Antibiotic treatment should be started within the first hour after recognition of sepsis. Administration of opioids (analgesics) decreases the intensity of the pain and does not affect the accuracy of physical examination.

Laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen from the Consensus Development Conference of the Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE), Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Chirurgia d'Urgenza e del Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana di Chirurgia nell'Ospedalità Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

In January 2010, the SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery), under the auspices of the EAES, decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies in adults, with the primary intent being to update the 2006 EAES indications and supplement the existing guidelines on specific diseases.

METHODS

Other Italian surgical societies were invited into the Consensus to form a panel of 12 expert surgeons. In order to get a multidisciplinary panel, other stakeholders involved in abdominal emergencies were invited along with a patient's association. In November 2010, the panel met in Rome to discuss each chapter according to the Delphi method, producing key statements with a grade of recommendations followed by commentary to explain the rationale and the level of evidence behind the statements. Thereafter, the statements were presented to the Annual Congress of the EAES in June 2011.

RESULTS

A thorough literature review was necessary to assess whether the recommendations issued in 2006 are still current. In many cases new studies allowed us to better clarify some issues (such as for diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, pancreatitis, hernias, trauma), to confirm the key role of laparoscopy (such as for cholecystitis, gynecological disorders, nonspecific abdominal pain, appendicitis), but occasionally previous strong recommendations have to be challenged after review of recent research (such as for perforated peptic ulcer).

CONCLUSIONS

Every surgeon has to develop his or her own approach, taking into account the clinical situation, her/his proficiency (and the experience of the team) with the various techniques, and the specific organizational setting in which she/he is working. This guideline has been developed bearing in mind that every surgeon could use the data reported to support her/his judgment.

Emergency laparoscopy for acute abdominal conditions: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Currently, emergency laparoscopic surgery for acute abdominal conditions has become the favored surgical approach; therefore, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic efficacy of laparoscopy in acute abdominal pain in Saudi Arabian patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, 176 patients with acute abdominal pain (113 patients with pain localized to the right iliac region [group A] and 63 patients with generalized abdominal pain [group B] underwent emergency laparoscopy between January 2002 and December 2006. We evaluated the initial clinical diagnosis, the laparoscopic diagnosis, and the outcome in these two groups of patients.

RESULTS

In group A, a definitive diagnosis was established at laparoscopy in 89% of patients, and it was therapeutic in 81.4% of the patients, and in 9 patients (8%) a conversion to laparotomy was necessary a to manage their condition. In group B, the diagnosis was accurate in 87% of patients, and it was therapeutic in 79.4% of the patients, and in 5 patients (8%) a conversion to laparotomy was necessary. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The emergency laparoscopy is a diagnostic and therapeutic option in the majority of acute abdominal pain conditions.

The role of diagnostic laparoscopy for acute abdominal conditions: an evidence-based review

Diagnostic laparoscopy is minimally invasive surgery for the diagnosis of intraabdominal diseases. This study aim was a critical examination of the available literature on the role of laparoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of acute intraabdominal conditions. A systematic literature search of English-language articles on MEDLINE, the Cochrane database of evidence-based reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects was performed for the period 1995-2006. The level of evidence in the identified articles was graded. This review examines the role of diagnostic laparoscopy for acute nonspecific abdominal pain, trauma, and the acute abdomen experienced by the critically ill patient. The indications, contraindications, risks, benefits, diagnostic accuracy of the procedure, and associated morbidity are discussed. The limitations of the available literature are highlighted, and evidence-based recommendations for the use of diagnostic laparoscopy to determine acute intraabdominal conditions are provided.

Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparoscopic exploration can be used to identify the causative pathology of acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopic surgery also allows treatment of many intraabdominal disorders. This report was prepared to describe the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to laparotomy or nonoperative treatment.

METHODS

A panel of European experts in abdominal and gynecological surgery was assembled and participated in a consensus conference using Delphi methods. The aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the most common diseases that may cause acute abdominal pain.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Laparoscopic surgery was found to be clearly superior for patients with a presumable diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer, acute cholecystitis, appendicitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. In the emergency setting, laparoscopy is of unclear or limited value if adhesive bowel obstruction, acute diverticulitis, nonbiliary pancreatitis, hernia incarceration, or mesenteric ischemia are suspected. In stable patients with acute abdominal pain, noninvasive diagnostics should be fully exhausted before considering explorative surgery. However, diagnostic laparoscopy may be useful if no diagnosis can be found by conventional diagnostics. More clinical data are needed on the use of laparoscopy after blunt or penetrating trauma of the abdomen.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to diagnostic and therapeutic advantages, laparoscopic surgery is useful for the majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, but noninvasive diagnostic aids should be exhausted first. Depending on symptom severity, laparoscopy should be advocated if routine diagnostic procedures have failed to yield results.

Effective laparoscopic drainage for intra-abdominal abscess not amenable to percutaneous approach: report of two cases

PURPOSE

The usefulness of the laparoscopic approach for massive intra-abdominal abscesses is controversial. We report two patients who underwent laparoscopic abscess drainage for massive intra-abdominal abscesses not amenable to the percutaneous approach that were suspected to be caused by acute appendicitis.

METHODS

In both patients, four ports were placed at their abdominal walls under general anesthesia. Intra-abdominal abscess cavities were punched out, and the purulent exudates that spilled out from the cavities were aspirated completely. Copious irrigation was performed under direct vision. These procedures were completed laparoscopically.

RESULTS

The postoperative clinical courses of the patients were uneventful. The intra-abdominal abscesses did not recur, and no wound complications were recognized. The patients were discharged from our hospital in excellent condition within two weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic drainage for massive intra-abdominal abscess is a minimally invasive and useful procedure compared with the open method or the percutaneous approach. It offers the advantage of being able to explore of the abdominal cavity without an unnecessary wide incision, and aspiration of a purulent exudate is possible under direct vision.