The role of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma

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.

Current technology: laparoscopic surgery in trauma

There has been a rapid increase in the use of laparoscopy in general surgery over recent years. However in the field of trauma its role has not been defined and its regular use remains limited to a select group of enthusiasts. We present a review of the current literature on laparoscopic surgery in trauma including therapeutic procedures and a brief synopsis of the alternative methods of investigation for abdominal injury, and our interpretation of the current role of laparoscopic surgery in trauma today.

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.

The role of laparoscopy in abdominal trauma

Since the advent of minimally invasive surgery, the use of laparoscopy for both diagnostic as well as therapeutic interventions has continued to expand in all of the surgical disciplines. In fact, this modality provides a viable alternative for the diagnosis of occult intra-abdominal injury following both penetrating and blunt trauma. The increased use of laparoscopy coupled with defined management algorithms has decreased the rate of negative and/or nontherapeutic laparotomy. This is particularly important in those patients where the potential for peritoneal violation exists without other clear indications for laparotomy. As technology and instrumentation continue to advance, future directions will include more attempts at therapeutic and ‘awake’ laparoscopy to embrace the advantages of minimally invasive surgery including decreased pain, expedited discharge and reduction of unnecessary laparotomy in suitable patients.

Standard examination system for laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Laparoscopy for abdominal trauma]

With increasing experience in minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy's role in abdominal trauma can be defined exactly. Main exclusion criteria are hemodynamic instability and increased intracranial pressure. A literature review of 1996 to 2006 reveals perforating injury mainly of the left thoracoadominal area as the most important indication for laparoscopy . Its goal is to determine intraperitoneal lesions and integrity of the abdominal wall and diaphragm. Minor injuries of the parenchymatous organs and diaphragm can be successfully repaired laparoscopically. In blunt abdominal trauma, laparoscopy is used as a complementary diagnostic device in case ultrasound and multislice CT show unclear findings and the patient's clinical status requires invasive measures. The clear weakness of laparoscopy in abdominal trauma is its inability to identify reliably hollow viscus perforation and retroperitoneal injury. In this, sensitivity is only 25%. In case of proven lesions of the gastrointestinal tract, conversion to laparotomy is to be considered. Despite the reports on laparoscopic treatment, open repair of hollow organ injuries is still to be recommended.

Abdominal emergencies: diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been practiced in the management of emergencies resulting from inflammatory conditions, lumenal obstruction, perforation, vascular occlusion, and trauma. This article identifies and discusses controversial areas in the field, in particular surrounding the efficacy, cost effectiveness, and perceived advantages of laparoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute abdominal conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review and commentary on pertinent articles in the English language literature are presented.

RESULTS

Prospective randomized trials have been reported in the treatment of some disorders, but a lack of recommendations that are evidence-based has hindered more widespread usage of laparoscopy in an emergency setting. In addition, concerns have been raised that the creation of capnoperitoneum in the patient with established peritonitis may be detrimental with respect to potentiation of bacteremia and severe sepsis, and experimental studies have yielded conflicting data in this regard.

CONCLUSION

As such issues are resolved, utilization of laparoscopy is likely to increase substantially as expertise is acquired. A minimal-access approach carries less morbidity and may offer other practical advantages in terms of surgical technique and application. When surgical intervention is appropriate, laparoscopy is now preferred for acute biliary disease. Female patients of reproductive age with acute appendicitis may benefit, particularly if there is preoperative diagnostic uncertainty. Selected cases of intestinal obstruction and visceral perforation presenting soon after symptom onset and in whom shock is absent may also be amenable to laparoscopic repair. Its use in the treatment of most trauma patients and patients with generalized peritonitis or hemodynamic instability is not recommended at present.

Diagnosis of bowel and mesenteric injuries in blunt abdominal trauma: a prospective study

PURPOSE

Currently, nonoperative management is the procedure of choice for solid organ injury in patients with a blunt abdominal trauma. Missed blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries (BBMIs) are possible because diagnosis is difficult. The aim of our study was to test a new algorithm for BBMI diagnosis using abdominal ultrasonography (AUS), computed tomography (CT), and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL).

METHODS

We reviewed cases of blunt abdominal injuries over a 10-year period, then we designed an algorithm that was prospectively tested in hemodynamically stable patients over a 2-year period. An abnormal AUS led to helical CT. When the CT showed more than 2 findings suggestive of BBMI, laparotomy was performed. In case of 1 or 2 abnormal CT findings, we performed a DPL and calculated the ratio of white blood cells (WBCs) to red blood cells (RBCs) (WBC/RBC ratio) in the lavage fluid and divided this by the WBC/RBC ratio in peripheral blood. A ratio of 1 or higher was considered positive for BBMI, and a laparotomy was immediately performed. Patients with a ratio of less than 1 were managed nonoperatively.

RESULTS

In the retrospective study, 26 (1%) of 2126 patients admitted to our trauma center for blunt trauma had a BBMI, including 15 (58%) diagnosed after a median delay of 24 hours. In the prospective study, 531 patients were admitted for blunt trauma with multiple injuries, including 131 with abdominal trauma. Computed tomography was performed in 40 patients. There were 2 criteria or more of BBMI in 1 patient, 0 criteria in 27 patients (with an uneventful follow-up), and 1 or 2 criteria in 12 patients who had DPL with a median ratio of 0.82 (ranges, 0.03-9). Five patients had a ratio of 1 or higher. They underwent immediate laparotomy. In all 5 cases, BBMI was found. The 7 patients who had a ratio of less than 1 were observed in ICU and treated for extra-abdominal injuries. No BBMI injury was missed in these patients. The accuracy of the algorithm was 100% (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The proposed algorithm (based on AUS, CT, and DPL) had a high accuracy to diagnose BBMI while requiring the performance of DPL in only a few (2%) patients.

Technology-driven triage of abdominal trauma: the emerging era of nonoperative management

Selective nonoperative management of blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma is safe, has eliminated the complications associated with nontherapeutic laparotomies, and is cost-effective. Appropriately selected investigations, such as focused abdominal sonography for trauma, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, spiral computed tomography (CT) scan, diagnostic laparoscopy, or thoracoscopy and angiography, play a critical role in the triage of patients. Future technological advances, such as improvement of the ultrasonic hardware and software that provide automated interpretation and the availability of portable CT scan machines in the emergency room, may improve the speed and accuracy of the initial evaluation. Improvement of the optical system of minilaparoscopes may allow reliable bedside laparoscopy for suspected diaphragmatic injuries.

Abdominal pain and ketonuria in an 11-year-old girl five months after abdominal trauma

Five months after an abdominal trauma, a 11-year-old girl was admitted for abdominal pain, hyperglycemia, and ketonuria, which led to the diagnosis of left diaphragmatic rupture with gastric necrosis and perforation. The girl died soon after operation.

Innovative minimally invasive pediatric surgery is of therapeutic value for splenic injury

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Until now, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has not had any therapeutic status for operable splenic trauma, because reliable sealing of larger defects is not possible with general techniques.

METHODS

Fleece-bound sealing allows rapid, large-area sealing of erosions and defects, so that with the aid of an MIS applicator system (AMISA), this method of tissue management can be transferred to MIS.

RESULTS

An in vitro evaluation showed that liquid fibrin sealing (FS) exhibits incomplete selective leak closure and low adhesive strength (4.1 hPa) and is not suitable for challenging surfaces. Fleece-bound sealing (ready-to-use v. prepare-to-use) showed reliable sealing and higher adhesive strength for collagen fleeces that are ready coated with fibrinogen-based sealant (TachoComb H; Nycomed, Linz, Austria) compared with various carrier systems that had to be impregnated on the spot (prepare-to-use; 50.2 v 23 hPa; P <.0001). Between October 1993 and October 2001, 19 of 87 children with splenic rupture were treated with the AMISA system (AMISA + TachoComb H) (21.8%), and 3 of these children had multiple trauma. The operation was indicated because of circulatory instability despite adequate volume replacement therapy. Splenic repair always was possible with the AMISA system, a changeover and splenectomy was not necessary, and the postoperative course was complication free. The mean stay in the hospital was 9.2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The AMISA system efficiently expands the indications for emergency laparoscopy and can be used successfully in emergency laparoscopy for splenic rupture management.

Diagnostic laparoscopy decreases the rate of unnecessary laparotomies and reduces hospital costs in trauma patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The use of laparoscopy for the treatment of various surgical diseases has been well described, and recently, it has gained popularity in the evaluation of abdominal trauma patients. The value of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in avoiding unnecessary laparotomies and its effects on hospital costs was evaluated in a prospective clinical trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a 48-month period, 99 hemodynamically stable abdominal trauma patients (28 blunt and 71 penetrating injuries) among 428 patients admitted with abdominal trauma in whom the decision for surgical exploration was made were accepted for the study and underwent DL prior to laparotomy.

RESULTS

The DL was negative in 60.7% of the patients with blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) and in 62.0% of the patients with penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT). Laparoscopy-positive patients (Group 1) underwent immediate laparotomy, whereas on DL-negative patients (Group 2), no laparotomies were performed. Hospitalization times and hospital costs of the two groups were recorded and compared. The difference between the hospitalization times of Group 1 and Group 2 was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The use of DL reduced the rate of unnecessary laparotomies from 60.7% to 0 in BAT and from 78.9% to 16.9% in PAT. The mean hospitalization time was 2.75 +/- 1.20 days in patients with negative DL, whereas it was 7.4 +/- 2.20 days and 5.2 +/- 1.42 days in DL-positive patients undergoing a therapeutic and nontherapeutic laparotomy, respectively. When the hospital costs of the Group 1 patients were compared with those of Group 2 patients, there was a 4.07-fold increase in patients undergoing therapeutic laparotomy and a 1.78-fold increase in patients undergoing nontherapeutic laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic laparoscopy might be used in selected patients to exclude significant intra-abdominal injuries.

Diagnostic laparoscopy for the acute abdomen and trauma

BACKGROUND

We set out to investigate the potential benefits of routine diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in cases of acute abdomen.

METHODS

A prospective study of 120 DL in acute abdominal cases was performed in comparison with 310 similar acute abdominal cases treated without DL. The diagnostic accuracy, hospital stay, therapeutic delay, and convalescence time were then evaluated.

RESULTS

DL established the indications for intervention in 96% of cases, yielded a diagnosis in 90%, and changed the treatment in 14%. The sensitivity achieved was 99.3%, specificity was 83.3%, and accuracy was 88.6%. There were two false positives, one false negative, and three results insufficient to make a diagnosis. Morbidity was one (0.8%), and mortality was one (0.8%). Seventy-nine patients (66%) were managed by laparoscopy and 24 by open interventions. The hospital stay in DL groups was shorter (median, 5 days vs 6 days in controls, p<0.0003), as was the effective treatment time (median, 5 days vs 6 days, p<0.0012). The convalescence time was also shorter in DL groups (median, 14 days vs 14 days, p<0.04). Therapeutic delay occurred in 16% of the control group cases, doubling the morbidity rate, increasing mortality by 50%, and prolonging hospital stay (median, 9 days vs 6 days, p>0.3 (NS).

CONCLUSIONS

DL in the acute abdomen is a safe and accurate procedure that enables laparoscopic interventions and helps avoid nontherapeutic surgery. DL and appropriate treatment reduces hospital stay, therapeutic delay, and convalescence time.

Laparoscopy in the management of diaphragmatic rupture due to blunt trauma

BACKGROUND

Traumatic diaphragmatic rupture remains a diagnostic challenge often unrecognized until laparotomy in over 40% of patients and the diagnosis is delayed in a further 15%. This report describes four patients diagnosed at laparoscopy with a ruptured diaphragm.

METHODS

One patient had a left diaphragmatic rupture amenable to laparoscopic repair in the emergency setting. Three patients underwent laparoscopy 2, 7 and 10 days after injury which revealed two right-sided and one extensive left-sided rupture, respectively; each required open repair.

RESULTS

While laparoscopy is an excellent diagnostic tool, particularly in the delayed setting, repair is not possible for right-sided ruptures because of the liver bulk.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracoscopy in the instance of delayed presentation may offer the best chance for minimal-access diagnosis and treatment when there is suspicion of a right-sided diaphragmatic rupture.