Selective application of laparoscopic intervention in the management of isolated bowel rupture in blunt abdominal trauma

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.

WSES guidelines on blunt and penetrating bowel injury: diagnosis, investigations, and treatment

The aim of this paper was to review the recent literature to create recommendations for the day-to-day diagnosis and surgical management of small bowel and colon injuries. Where knowledge gaps were identified, expert consensus was pursued during the 8th International Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery Annual (September 2021, Edinburgh). This process also aimed to guide future research.

Negative surgical exploration in suspected gastrointestinal perforation: trend, preoperative predictors, and etiologies

Background

Despite the rapid improvement of clinical science and imaging technology including computed tomography, the entity of negative surgical exploration in suspected gastrointestinal perforation (N-GIP) still exist. However, few studies have focused on this issue and most studies are case reports. We undertook this study to investigate the rates of N-GIP, and explore a set of possible preoperative predictors associated with N-GIP.

Methods

This was a retrospective study performed at the department of general surgery in our treatment center. All patients included were suspected gastrointestinal perforation (GIP) cases, aged 14 years and over, and underwent emergency surgery between 2009 and 2019. A predictive multivariable model of the presence of N-GIP was developed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 973 patients were identified and 30 (3.1%) were found to have no evidence of perforated gastrointestinal tract. The mean age of patients was 59.74 (range, 14–97) years, and 67.2 percent of the patients were males. The rates of N-GIP did not have a significant change over time (P=0.212 for trend). In multivariable analysis, absence of generalized peritonitis, duration of abdominal pain >19.6 hours, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) <3.80 were significant predictors of N-GIP. N-GIP was more common in patients with gastrointestinal tumors and foreign bodies. Five patients (16.7%) in N-GIP group experienced complications and the 90-day mortality rate was 6.7%.

Conclusions

The rates of N-GIP did not change significantly over time. N-GIP was associated with the absence of generalized peritonitis, duration of abdominal pain >19.6 hours, and NLR <3.80.

The Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopy for Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The efficacy and safety of laparoscopy for blunt trauma remain controversial. This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the usefulness of laparoscopy in blunt trauma. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to 23 February 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and overall proportions. Overall, 19 studies with a total of 1520 patients were included. All patients were hemodynamically stable. In the laparoscopy group, meta-analysis showed lesser blood loss (SMD −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.51 to −0.05, I² = 62%) and shorter hospital stay (SMD −0.67, 95% CI −0.90 to −0.43, I² = 47%) compared with the laparotomy group. Pooled prevalence of missed injury (0.003 (95% CI 0 to 0.023), I² = 0%), nontherapeutic laparotomy (0.004 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.026), I² = 0%), and mortality (0.021 (95% CI 0.010 to 0.043), I² = 0%) were very low in blunt trauma. In subgroup analysis, recently published studies (2011–present) showed lesser conversion rate (0.115 (95% CI 0.067 to 0.190) vs. 0.391 (95% CI 0.247 to 0.556), test for subgroup difference: p < 0.01). This meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopy is a safe and feasible option in hemodynamic stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.