Value of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for patients with blunt abdominal trauma: A 10-year medical center experience

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.

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.

Negative laparotomy rates and outcomes following blunt traumatic injury in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Exploratory laparotomy remains the mainstay of treatment following blunt abdominal trauma. However, the decision to operate can be difficult in hemodynamically stable patients with unreliable physical exams or equivocal imaging findings. The risk of a negative laparotomy and the subsequent complications must be weighed against the potential morbidity and mortality of a missed abdominal injury. Our study aims to evaluate trends and the effect of negative laparotomies on morbidity and mortality in adults with blunt traumatic injuries in the United States.

METHODS

We reviewed the National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2019) for adults with blunt traumatic injuries who underwent an exploratory laparotomy. Positive or negative laparotomy of abdominal injury was compared. We performed bivariate analysis and a modified Poisson regression to estimate the effect of negative laparotomy on mortality. A sub-analysis of patients who underwent computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis was performed.

RESULTS

92,800 patients met the inclusion criteria of the primary analysis. Negative laparotomy rates were 12.0% in this population, down-trending throughout the study. Negative laparotomy patients had a significantly higher crude mortality (31.1% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.001), despite lower injury severity scores (20 (10-29) vs. 25 (16-35), p < 0.001) than positive laparotomy patients. Patients that underwent negative laparotomy had a 33% higher risk for mortality (RR1.33, 95% CI 1.28-1.37, P < 0.001) than positive laparotomy patients after adjusting for pertinent covariates. Patients that underwent CT abdomen/pelvis imaging (n = 45,654) had a lower rate of negative laparotomy (11.1%) and decreased difference in crude mortality (22.6% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001) compared to positive laparotomy patients. However, the relative risk for mortality remained high at 37% (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.29 - 1.46, p < 0.001) for this sub-cohort.

CONCLUSION

Negative laparotomy rates in adults with blunt traumatic injuries are trending down in the United States but remains substantial and may show improvement with increased use of diagnostic imaging. Negative laparotomy has a relative risk for mortality of 33% despite lower injury severity. Thus, surgical exploration in this population should be thoughtfully undertaken with appropriate evaluation via physical exam and diagnostic imaging to prevent unnecessary morbidity and mortality.

Comparison between laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in morbid obese patients

Purpose

To evaluate the laparoscopic approach advantages for the management of acute appendicitis in morbidly obese patients.

Methods

A prospective study included all morbidly obese patients who had presented to the emergency department at Sohag University Hospitals and were diagnosed with acute appendicitis between the 1st of June 2022 and the 31st of January 2023. All those patients were invited to participate in the research by randomization. The authors informed patients and their first-degree relatives about both techniques, signed a consent form for participation in the study. The authors categorized them into two groups; laparoscopic approach (group I) and open approach (group II). Comparisons were based on operative time, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and time until return to normal daily activities.

Results

The study enrolled 64 patients: 33 had a laparoscopic appendectomy, and 31 had an open appendectomy. The groups were similar in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics. The operating time was significantly shorter for Group I patients than Group II (Group I, 49.09±16.21 min vs. Group II, 68.03±15.78 min; P value less than 0.05). Regarding the length of hospital stay, twenty-six patients (78.8%) were discharged within the 1st 24 h in the laparoscopic group versus 17 patients (54.8%) in the open group (P value 0.041). The time until return to the routine daily work was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (11.27±2.6 days) than in the open group (17.23±4.8 days) (P value less 0.05). Four postoperative complications were reported in the study population: wound complications (infection, seroma formation), residual abdominal abscess, paralytic ileus, and thromboembolic complications (Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism). Group II had a statistically significant higher complication rate (32.3%) than Group I (9.09%) (P value 0.007).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic appendectomy had superior clinical outcomes than an open appendectomy in morbidly obese patients. In addition to minimal invasiveness and better cosmetic results, it has a great advantage as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in morbidly obese patients with suspected appendicitis. It is also a safe and feasible approach with a low rate of complications with a well-trained expert surgeon.

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.

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.

Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Blunt Abdominal Injury in Level-I and II Pediatric Trauma Centers

Introduction

An American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level-I (L-I) pediatric trauma center demonstrated successful laparoscopy without conversion to laparotomy in ∼65% of trauma cases. Prior reports have demonstrated differences in outcomes based on ACS level of trauma center. We sought to compare laparoscopy use for blunt abdominal trauma at L-I compared to Level-II (L-II) centers.

Methods

The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried (2014-2016) for patients ≤16 years old who underwent any abdominal surgery. Bivariate analyses comparing patients undergoing abdominal surgery at ACS L-I and L-II centers were performed.

Results

970 patients underwent abdominal surgery with 14% using laparoscopy. Level-I centers had an increased rate of laparoscopy (15.6% vs 9.7%, P = .019 ); however they had a lower mean Injury Severity Score (16.2 vs 18.5, P = .002) compared to L-II centers. Level-I and L-II centers had similar length of stay ventilator days, and SSIs (all P > .05).

Conclusion

While use of laparoscopy for pediatric trauma remains low, there was increased use at L-I compared to L-II centers with no difference in LOS or SSIs. Future studies are needed to elucidate which pediatric trauma patients benefit from laparoscopic surgery.

[Advantages of laparoscopic technologies for blunt abdominal trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effectiveness of laparotomy and laparoscopy in the treatment of patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Literature searching was conducted in accordance with the recommendations «Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses» between January 2015 and August 2021. We used the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, eLibrary.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy reduces hospital-stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality in hemodynamically stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma compared to laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are required to obtain high quality data.

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.

Improved access in minimally invasive temporomandibular joint surgery through a novel endaural template

Background

Digitally designed surgical templates for minimally invasive temporomandibular joint (TMJ) surgery (MITMJS) are a promising tool for improving the safety of these procedures. Given the TMJ anatomy, the template fitting and intraoperative overview are the most important issues for a safe surgery. This article is a technical advance article that aims to describe an endaural surgical template based on the Moses approach as a possible solution in TMJ surgery.

Methods

Three patients with internal derangement were treated with the guidance of a MITMJS template based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a surface imprint of the periauricular region. None of the patients needed an additional open surgical procedure. Fitting of the templates was judged in terms of position and rotational stability. Surgical side effects and complications were recorded for each patient.

Results

The template design and clinical use were satisfactory for MITMJS. The templates showed satisfying fit and good visibility. In the study cohort, no bleeding, facial nerve injury, or other complications occurred after the procedure, and no visible scars were noted postoperatively.

Conclusion

Our feasibility report on template-guided MITMJS shows a promising new application of templates. It points to improved access in arthroscopy or arthrocentesis of TMJ surgery through endaural access with an increased level of safety during surgery.

Laparoscopic treatment of mesenteric avulsion and intestinal perforation after blunt abdominal trauma: A report of a case

•

Intestinal injuries are quite involved in non-penetrating abdominal trauma after liver and spleen.

•

The incidence of small bowel injury after blunt abdominal trauma has increased nowadays, since high-energy transfer impacts producing large abdominal wall displacements are more frequent, such as car crash.

•

We report a case of a 49-year-old Caucasian woman, victim of a violent car crash, resulting in multiple small bowel perforations and mesenteric avulsion treated with laparoscopic approach.

•

Laparoscopy is a safe and feasible tool in selected patients with blunt abdominal trauma, both for diagnosis and treatment.

•

The prerequisites for applying mini invasive approach are both the hemodynamic stability of the patient and an adequate surgical expertise in advanced laparoscopy.

Introduction

Intestinal injuries are quite involved in non-penetrating abdominal trauma after liver and spleen. The incidence of small bowel injury after blunt abdominal trauma has increased nowadays, since high-energy transfer impacts producing large abdominal wall displacements are more frequent, such as car crash.

Case report

We report a case of a 49-year-old Caucasian woman, victim of a violent car crash, resulting in multiple small bowel perforations and mesenteric avulsion. Since the patient was hemodynamically stable, a laparoscopic approach was carried on.

Discussion

Blunt abdominal trauma are responsible of 6–14.9% of all traumatic injuries (Galia et al., 2017). The frequency of small bowel lesions ranges from 5% to 15%, while small bowel mesenteric injuries are approximately found in 5% of patients after blunt abdominal trauma. There are different biomechanical reasons explaining how a blunt trauma can cause damages to small bowel and its mesentery. Clinical diagnosis of small bowel perforation after blunt abdominal trauma is often challenging for non-specific objective clinical signs and because peritoneal irritation symptoms are present only in collaborative patients.

Conclusion

Laparoscopy is a safe and feasible tool in selected patients with blunt abdominal trauma, both for diagnosis and treatment. The prerequisites for applying mini invasive approach are both the hemodynamic stability of the patient and an adequate surgical expertise in advanced laparoscopy.

Therapeutic laparoscopy for pediatric abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

For the surgical treatment of traumatic hollow viscus injuries, laparoscopy offers a potentially less morbid approach to open exploration among appropriately selected patients. This study aimed to evaluate utilization trends and efficacy of laparoscopy in the management of pediatric abdominal trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

To gain both study granularity and power, our institutional trauma registry (2005-2017) and the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB; 2010-2015) identified patients ≤18 years who required celiotomy for abdominal trauma. Injury mechanisms, patient characteristics, and hospital courses were compared between open and laparoscopic approaches. Unadjusted and adjusted statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, data were similar among 393 institutional and 11,399 NTDB patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 88, 22%; n = 1663, 16%) or open (n = 305, 78%; n = 9736, 85%) surgery for abdominal trauma. In both registries, laparoscopy was more commonly employed in younger (institutional p = 0.026; NTDB p < 0.001) female (p = 0.019; p < 0.001) patients having lower injury severity (p < 0.001) and blunt injuries (p = 0.031; p < 0.001). Laparoscopy was associated with fewer complications overall when adjusting for demographics and injury severity [institutional OR 0.25 (0.08-0.75), p = 0.013; NTDB OR 0.69 (0.55-0.88), p = 0.002]. An increase in utilization of MIS for pediatric abdominal trauma was detected over time (NTDB: r = 0.88, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

For the management of pediatric abdominal trauma, laparoscopy was employed typically in younger, more stable, and female patients sustaining blunt injuries. Appropriately selected patients have similar or better outcomes to patients treated with laparotomy, with no increase in adverse events or missed injuries. Increased utilization of laparoscopy to manage abdominal trauma in children suggests greater acceptance of this approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Diagnostic options for blunt abdominal trauma

PURPOSE

Physical examination, laboratory tests, ultrasound, conventional radiography, multislice computed tomography (MSCT), and diagnostic laparoscopy are used for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma. In this article, we investigate and evaluate the usefulness and limitations of various diagnostic modalities on the basis of a comprehensive review of the literature.

METHODS

We searched commonly used databases in order to obtain information about the aforementioned diagnostic modalities. Relevant articles were included in the literature review. On the basis of the results of our comprehensive analysis of the literature and a current case, we offer a diagnostic algorithm.

RESULTS

A total of 86 studies were included in the review. Ecchymosis of the abdominal wall (seat belt sign) is a clinical sign that has a high predictive value. Laboratory values such as those for haematocrit, haemoglobin, base excess or deficit, and international normalised ratio (INR) are prognostic parameters that are useful in guiding therapy. Extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (eFAST) has become a well established component of the trauma room algorithm but is of limited usefulness in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. Compared with all other diagnostic modalities, MSCT has the highest sensitivity and specificity. Diagnostic laparoscopy is an invasive technique that may also serve as a therapeutic tool and is particularly suited for haemodynamically stable patients with suspected hollow viscus injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

MSCT is the gold standard diagnostic modality for blunt abdominal trauma because of its high sensitivity and specificity in detecting relevant intra-abdominal injuries. In many cases, however, clinical, laboratory and imaging findings must be interpreted jointly for an adequate evaluation of a patient's injuries and for treatment planning since these data supplement and complement one another. Patients with blunt abdominal trauma should be admitted for clinical observation over a minimum period of 24 h since there is no investigation that can reliably rule out intra-abdominal injuries.

Findings requiring immediate surgery in blunt abdominal trauma patients with isolated free fluid without solid organ injury on abdominal computed tomography: Retrospective laboratory, clinical and radiologic analysis. A case control study

BACKGROUND

Determining surgical treatment is difficult in blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) patients with isolated free fluid without solid organ injury (IFFWSOI) on abdominal computed tomography (CT). We investigated the laboratory, clinical, and radiologic features of BAT patients with IFFWSOI on abdominal CT requiring surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record review was performed for patients treated at our government-established regional tertiary trauma center from March 2014 to August 2018. A total of 501 patients were identified and reviewed. Patients were divided into Surgery and No Surgery groups for analysis. The Surgery group included patients who underwent surgery during the index admission, while the No Surgery group included patients who did not undergo surgery.

RESULTS

There were significantly more cases of severe fluid collection (61.5% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001), car accidents (69.2% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.018), and abdominal pain (87.2% vs. 58.8%; p = 0.031) at the emergency department in the Surgery group. Regarding laboratory studies performed at the emergency department, only the median amylase level was significantly higher in the No Surgery group (54.5 U/L vs. 62.5 U/L; p = 0.048). On multivariate logistic regression analysis with adjustments for age and sex, the odds ratio (OR) for severe fluid collection on abdominal CT to predict surgery was 13.52 (p = 0.006), while the OR for abdominal pain was 7.34 (p = 0.036) and the OR for car accident was 2.14 (p = 0.329). In addition, a multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, delta neutrophil index, and C-reactive protein, showed the same propensity as the other model, although statistical significance was retained only for severe fluid collection.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment should be actively considered in the presence of a large volume of intra-abdominal free fluid, especially when concomitant with abdominal pain or after car accidents in BAT patients without solid organ injury.

Early management of severe abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE

To develop French guidelines on the management of patients with severe abdominal trauma.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 20 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation, SFAR), the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société française de médecine d'urgence, SFMU), the French Society of Urology (Société française d'urologie, SFU) and from the French Association of Surgery (Association française de chirurgie, AFC), the Val-de-Grâce School (École du Val-De-Grâce, EVG) and the Federation for Interventional Radiology (Fédération de radiologie interventionnelle, FRI-SFR) was convened. Declaration of all conflicts of interest (COI) policy by all participants was mandatory throughout the development of the guidelines. The entire guideline process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of the available level of evidence with particular emphasis to avoid formulating strong recommendations in the absence of high level. Some recommendations were left ungraded.

METHODS

The guidelines are divided in diagnostic and, therapeutic strategy and early surveillance. All questions were formulated according to Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) format. The panel focused on three questions for diagnostic strategy: (1) What is the diagnostic performance of clinical signs to suggest abdominal injury in trauma patients? (2) Suspecting abdominal trauma, what is the diagnostic performance of prehospital FAST (Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma) to rule in abdominal injury and guide the prehospital triage of the patient? and (3) When suspecting abdominal trauma, does carrying out a contrast enhanced thoraco-abdominal CT scan allow identification of abdominal injuries and reduction of mortality? Four questions dealt with therapeutic strategy: (1) After severe abdominal trauma, does immediate laparotomy reduce morbidity and mortality? (2) Does a "damage control surgery" strategy decrease morbidity and mortality in patients with a severe abdominal trauma? (3) Does a laparoscopic approach in patients with abdominal trauma decrease mortality or morbidity? and (4) Does non-operative management of patients with abdominal trauma without bleeding reduce mortality and morbidity? Finally, one question was formulated regarding the early monitoring of these patients: In case of severe abdominal trauma, which kind of initial monitoring does allow to reduce the morbi-mortality? The analysis of the literature and the recommendations were conducted following the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The SFAR/SFMU Guideline panel provided 15 statements on early management of severe abdominal trauma. After three rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of recommendations. Of these recommendations, five have a high level of evidence (Grade 1±), six have a low level of evidence (Grade 2±) and four are expert judgments. Finally, no recommendation was provided for one question.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best early management of severe abdominal trauma.

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.

Complete Jejunal Transection After Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Isolated complete transection of the small bowel is extremely rare in blunt abdominal trauma. If it occurs, it is often associated with high-energy impact, as seen in motor vehicle accidents and falls from heights. In this case, a trivial trauma due to a handlebar injury caused a complete transection of the middle jejunum.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 47-year-old man walked into the emergency department with moderate abdominal pain ∼10 hours after a fall on to a bicycle's handlebar from a standing position. A bedside ultrasound showed minimal amount of free fluid and a following performed computed tomographic scan indicated an edematous loop of small bowel with diminutive amount of extraluminal air, suggesting small bowel perforation. Because of the absence of abdominal peritonism in a hemodynamically stable patient, a conservative treatment and surveillance was established. In the follow-up, the patient suddenly developed severe abdominal pain with now clear signs of peritonism. An emergency laparoscopy showed a complete transection of the middle jejunum. A primary anastomosis was performed. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged after 7 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Even seemingly trivial blunt abdominal traumas can cause complete transection of the small bowel, as shown in this case. Patients with blunt abdominal trauma need to be reviewed frequently by an experienced clinician. Diagnostic laparoscopy attaches a great importance to early detection and treatment of small bowel injuries. The mechanical pattern of the injury seems to be more important than the energy of the impact itself.