Complications of negative laparotomy for truncal stab wounds

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.

Role of laparoscopy in management of patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds

BACKGROUND

In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed the utility of laparoscopic surgery for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASWs). We also investigated patient characteristics that might suggest a greater suitability of laparoscopic interventions.

METHODS

Over a 25-year span, we analyzed AASW patients who had operations, categorizing them based on the presence of significant intra-abdominal injuries and whether they received laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. We compared variables such as preoperative conditions, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes. We further evaluated the criteria indicating the necessity of direct laparotomies and traits linked to overlooked injuries in laparoscopic surgeries.

RESULTS

Of 142 AASWs surgical patients, laparoscopic surgery was conducted on 89 (62.7%) patients. Only 2 (2.2%) had overlooked injuries after the procedure. Among patients without significant injuries, those receiving laparoscopic surgery had less blood loss than those receiving laparotomy (30.0 vs. 150.0 ml, p = 0.004). Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery also had shorter hospital stays (significant injuries: 6.0 vs. 11.0 days, p < 0.001; no significant injuries: 5.0 vs. 6.5 days, p = 0.014). Surgical complications and overlooked injury rates were comparable between both surgical methods. Bowel evisceration correlated with higher laparotomy odds (odds ratio = 16.224, p < 0.001), while omental evisceration did not (p = 0.107).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective method for patients with AASWs, fulfilling both diagnostic and therapeutic needs. For stable AASW patients, laparoscopy could be the preferred method, reducing superfluous nontherapeutic laparotomies.

Concordance of CT imaging and surgical lesions in penetrating abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE

The management of penetrating abdominal wounds has greatly benefited from the development of computed tomography (CT), particularly in stable patients. In this setting, the scanner is the reference examination. Our study aims to evaluate the performance of preoperative CT in the assessment of penetrating abdominal lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2022, 81 patients were hospitalized following penetrating abdominal trauma at the Army Training Hospitals of Sainte-Anne and Laveran. Fifty-one stable patients who had an abdominopelvic CT scan and thereafter underwent abdominal surgery (laparotomy or laparoscopy) were included. Radiological and surgical data were collected from the electronic record and compared by a descriptive analysis (calculation of the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of the CT for the detection of lesions of the various organs) and by a correlation of the CT findings with surgical findings using Kripendorff's alpha coefficient.

RESULTS

The cohort was largely male (n=45; 88%), with injuries by knife wound in 62.7% of cases (n=32) and gunshot in 35.3% (n=18) of cases. The median age was 36years (25-47). The median index of severity score (ISS) was 17 (10-26). Excellent agreement between predicted and actual findings was obtained for solid organs (α=0.801) with high sensitivity and specificity (81.8% and 96.6%, respectively). The largest discrepancies were observed for the hollow organs (α=26.2%, sensitivity of 53.3% and specificity of 76.2%) and the diaphragm (α=67.3%, sensitivity 75%, specificity 92.3%). Surgical exploration was non-therapeutic for five patients (9.8%). The failure rate for non-operative treatment was 10% (n=1).

CONCLUSION

CT detection of solid organ lesions in patients with penetrating abdominal wounds is excellent. However, the detection of hollow organ and diaphragmatic wounds remains a challenge with a risk of over- and underdiagnosis. Laparoscopic exploration should be able to fill in the gaps in the CT findings.

Non-operative management of solid organ injuries in a middle-income country, how does it stack up?

INTRODUCTION

The first trauma surgery unit in Malaysia was established in 2011. After 10 years, we examine our experience in the management, and outcomes of blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of patients with blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries in a level 1 trauma centre in Malaysia between January 2018 to June 2021. Patients' characteristics, new injury severity score, organ-specific AAST injury score, type of primary management (operative management [OM], non-operative management [NOM]), causes of failed NOM, management of failed NOM, and outcome of treatment were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

Among 448 patients, 83.9% were male and in the working-age range of 15-64 years old (93.5%). Road traffic crashes made up 92.0% of blunt trauma resulting in 65.5% of isolated organ injuries and 34.5% combined injuries. An overwhelming 84.2% of the patients had major trauma (NISS>15). Three hundred and thirty-four patients (74.6%) underwent initial non-operative management. Patients in the OM group showed lower mean GCS scores (p = 0.022) and higher NISS scores (p < 0.001). High-grade liver and kidney injuries were mostly treated with NOM (p < 0.001). In contradistinction, patients with high-grade spleen injuries had more OM performed (p < 0.001). NOM had been successful in 325 patients (97.3%) with 9 failures. Underlying causes for NOM failure were hemodynamic instability due to secondary bleeding and infectious complications. Overall mortality was 11.2%, which was significantly higher in the OM group (23.7%) than in the NOM group (6.9%).

CONCLUSION

This study represents one of the largest single centre experiences on the blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries in Malaysia and South-East Asia. With good selection and adequate resources, non-operative management of blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries is a safe and effective therapeutic approach with a high success rate of 97.3%, avoiding the morbidity of unnecessary laparotomies.

Race and insurance status outcome disparities following splenectomy in trauma patients are reduced in larger hospitals. A cross-sectional study

Background

Splenectomy, still a commonly performed treatment for splenic injury in trauma patients, has been shown to have a high rate of complications. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors, including race and insurance status, associated with adverse outcomes post-splenectomy in trauma patients. We discuss possible explanations and methods for reducing these disparities.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons – Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) participant user database was queried from 2010 to 2015 and patients who underwent total splenectomy were identified. All mechanisms of injury, including both blunt and penetrating trauma, were included. Patients with advance directives limiting care or aged under 18 were excluded. Propensity score matching was used to control for age, preexisting medical conditions, and the severity of the traumatic injury. A chi-squared test was used to find significant associations between available predictors and outcomes for this cross-sectional study.

Results

The post-splenectomy mortality rate was 9.2% (n = 1047), 8.0% (n = 918) of patients had three or more complications, and 20.3% (n = 2315) had major complications. A primary race of white (OR 0.7, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.6–0.9, p < 0.01) and private insurance (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.4–0.6, p < 0.01) were associated with lower risks of mortality A primary race of neither Black nor white (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.03–1.7, p = 0.03) and a lack of health insurance (“self-pay”) (OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.3–1.9, p < 0.01) were both correlated with mortality. When limited to hospitals of 600+ beds, there were no associations between race and mortality.

Conclusion

The post-splenectomy mortality rate after trauma remains high. In U.S. trauma centers, a primary race of Black and payment status of “self-pay” are associated with adverse outcomes after splenectomy following a traumatic injury. These disparities are reduced when limiting analysis to larger hospitals. Efforts to reduce disparities in outcomes among trauma patients requiring a splenectomy should focus on improving resource availability and quality in smaller hospitals.

•

The post-splenectomy mortality rate in trauma patients remains high.

•

Mortality is less frequent in white patients, and more frequent in uninsured patients.

•

Black patients were more likely to experience major complications following splenectomy.

•

In hospitals with greater than 600 beds, there were no associations between race and mortality following splenectomy.

Diagnostic utility of CT for abdominal injury in the military setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is critical to accurately identify patients with abdominal injury who truly need to undergo laparotomy during the war in timely fashion. The diagnostic utility of computed tomography (CT) for evaluating abdominal injury in the military setting remains uncertain.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Meta-analyses were performed by using a random-effect model. We pooled the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves with standard errors, the Q indexes with standard errors, the sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the specificities with 95% CIs, the positive likelihood ratios with 95% CIs, the negative likelihood ratios with 95% CIs, and the diagnostic odds ratios with 95% CIs. The heterogeneity among studies were evaluated by the I2 and P value.

RESULTS

Overall, 5 retrospective studies were included. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9761 ± 0.0215 and the Q index was 0.9302 ± 0.0378. The pooled sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI = 0.92-0.99) without a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0%, P = .4538). The pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.93-0.97) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 90.6%, P < .0001). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 10.71 (95% CI: 2.91-39.43) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 89.2%, P < .0001). The pooled negative likelihood ratio was 0.07 (95% CI = 0.02-0.27) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 57.5%, P = .0516). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 177.48 (95% CI = 18.09-1741.31) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 75.9%, P = .0023).

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic accuracy of CT for abdominal injury is excellent in the military setting. Further work should explore how to shrink CT equipment for a wider use in wartime.

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”.

Conservative management of abdominoperineal impalement trauma - A case report

INTRODUCTION

Adult perineal impalement injuries are uncommon and notorious for their complex injury pattern and risk of massive pelvic bleeding. They present a challenge for the treating physician as there is no consensus about the optimal treatment in the existing literature. In most cases patients need operative intervention.

CASE PRESENTATION

In this article the authors present a case report of a 63-year old man with an impalement injury in the left gluteus, who was managed conservatively.

DISCUSSION

With the recent trends towards conservative management of abdominal penetrating trauma, increased morbidity and costs associated with nontherapeutic laparotomy, conservative management of impalement injuries in hemodynamically stable patients should be considered. Accurate determination of the impaling object trajectory path is vital for the decision and aids to answer two important questions: Did the impaling object enter the peritoneal, retroperitoneal or pelvic cavity? Is there an injury that will require an operation?

CONCLUSION

Abdominoperineal impalement injuries have high mortality, but those patients, who manage to reach hospital alive, can sometimes be manages conservatively, as shown in our case report.

Decreased Length of Stay After Laparoscopic Diaphragm Repair for Isolated Diaphragm Injury After Penetrating Trauma

BACKGROUND

Isolated diaphragm injury (IDI) occurs in up to 30% of penetrating left thoracoabdominal injuries. Laparoscopic abdominal procedures have demonstrated improved outcome including decreased postoperative pain and length of stay (LOS) compared to open surgery. However, there is a paucity of data on this topic for penetrating IDI. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and outcome of laparoscopic diaphragmatic repair versus open diaphragmatic repair (LDR vs ODR) of IDI.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients with IDI who underwent ODR versus LDR. A bivariate analysis using Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney test was performed to determine LOS among the two groups.

RESULTS

From 2039 diaphragm injuries, 368 patients had IDI; 281 patients (76.4%) underwent ODR and 87 (23.6%) underwent LDR. Compared to LDR, the ODR patients were older (median, 31 vs 25 years, P < .001) and had a higher injury severity score (mean, 11.2 vs 9.6, P = .03) but had similar rates of intensive care unit LOS, unplanned return to the operating room, ventilator days, and complications (P > .05). Patients undergoing ODR had a longer LOS (5 vs 4 days, P = .01), compared to LDR. There were no deaths in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma patients presenting with IDI undergoing ODR had a longer hospital LOS compared to patients undergoing LDR with no difference in complications or mortality. Therefore, we recommend when possible an LDR should be employed to decrease hospital LOS. Further research is needed to examine other benefits of laparoscopy such as postoperative pain, incisional hernia, and wound-related complications.

Selective nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma at a level 1 Canadian trauma centre: a quest for perfection

Background

Many patients who sustain penetrating abdominal trauma can be managed nonoperatively. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) has published guidelines on selective nonoperative management (SNOM), and this approach is well established. The purpose of this study is to assess the management of penetrating abdominal trauma, including the selection of patients for SNOM and the use of this approach, at a Canadian level 1 trauma centre.

Methods

We used the Hamilton Health Sciences trauma registry to compile data on patients aged 16 years and older who sustained penetrating abdominal trauma from Jan. 1, 2011, to Dec. 31, 2017. Hemodynamically stable, nonperitonitic patients without evisceration or impalement were considered potentially eligible for SNOM. We compared the SNOM group of patients with the immediate operative (IOR) group. Our primary outcome was SNOM failure; secondary outcomes included length of stay, repeat imaging, computed tomography (CT) protocol, laparoscopy in left thoracoabdominal trauma, and nontherapeutic and negative laparotomies.

Results

We included 191 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma; 123 underwent SNOM and 68 underwent IOR. Of the 68 patients in the IOR group, 4 underwent nontherapeutic laparotomies. Of the 123 patients in the SNOM group, this approach failed in 7 (5.7%). Patients who were successfully managed with SNOM had an average length of stay of 25.4 hours (7.9–43.0 h), with no repeat imaging in 34/35 (97.1%). Only 5 of the 47 patients with flank/back wounds had a CT scan that included luminal contrast. Only 3 of the 58 patients with left thoracoabdominal wounds underwent same-admission laparoscopy, all demonstrating diaphragmatic defects.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates a high rate of compliance with the EAST SNOM guidelines, including minimal failure rate of SNOM and an efficient use of resources as demonstrated by reduced length of stay and minimal use of reimaging. We identified 2 opportunities for improvement: improved use of luminal contrast CT in patients with flank/back wounds and improved use of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with left thoracoabdominal wounds.

Selective non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma: a systematic review

Introduction

The treatment of abdominal solid organ injuries has shifted towards non-operative management (NOM). However, the feasibility of NOM for penetrating splenic trauma is unclear and outcome is believed to be worse than NOM for penetrating liver and kidney injuries. Hence, the aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate the feasibility of selective NOM in penetrating splenic injury.

Methods

A review of literature was performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies on adult patients treated by NOM for splenic injuries were included and outcome was documented and compared.

Results

Five articles from exclusively level-1 and level-2-traumacenters were selected and a total of 608 cases of penetrating splenic injury were included. Nonoperative management was applied in 123 patients (20.4%, range 17–33%). An overall failure rate of NOM of 18% was calculated. Mortality was not seen in patients selected for nonoperative management. Contra-indicatons for NOM included hemodynamic instability, absence of abdominal CT-scanning to rule out concurrent injuries and peritonitis.

Conclusions

This review demonstrates that non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma in highly selected patients has been utilized in several well-equipped and experienced trauma centers. NOM of penetrating splenic injury in selected patients is not associated with increased morbidity nor mortality. Data on the less well-equipped and experienced trauma centers are not available. More prospective studies are required to further define exact selection criteria for non-operative management in splenic trauma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00068-019-01117-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nonoperative management of solid abdominal organ injuries: From past to present

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Today, a significant proportion of solid abdominal organ injuries, whether caused by penetrating or blunt trauma, are managed nonoperatively. However, the controversy over operative versus nonoperative management started more than a hundred years ago. The aim of this review is to highlight some of the key past observations and summarize the current knowledge and guidelines in the management of solid abdominal organ injuries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A non-systematic search through historical articles and references on the management practices of abdominal injuries was conducted utilizing early printed volumes of major surgical and medical journals from the late 19th century onwards.

RESULTS

Until the late 19th century, the standard treatment of penetrating abdominal injuries was nonoperative. The first article advocating formal laparotomy for abdominal gunshot wounds was published in 1881 by Sims. After World War I, the policy of mandatory laparotomy became standard practice for penetrating abdominal trauma. During the latter half of the 20th century, the concept of selective nonoperative management, initially for anterior abdominal stab wounds and later also gunshot wounds, was adopted by major trauma centers in South Africa, the United States, and little later in Europe. In blunt solid abdominal organ injuries, the evolution from surgery to nonoperative management in hemodynamically stable patients aided by the development of modern imaging techniques was rapid from 1980s onwards.

CONCLUSION

With the help of modern imaging techniques and adjunctive radiological and endoscopic interventions, a major shift from mandatory to selective surgical approach to solid abdominal organ injuries has occurred during the last 30-50 years.

Accuracy of Computed Tomography in Diagnosis of Intra-abdominal Injuries in Stable Patients With Anterior Abdominal Stab Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Workup for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) following an anterior abdominal stab wound (AASW) has been debated since the 1960s. Experts agree that patients with peritonitis, evisceration, or hemodynamic instability should undergo immediate laparotomy (LAP); however, workup of stable, asymptomatic or nonperitoneal patients is not clearly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography of abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) for diagnosis of intraabdominal injuries requiring therapeutic laparotomy (THER-LAP) in ED patients with AASW. Is a negative CT scan without a period of observation sufficient to safely discharge a hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic AASW patient?

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from their inception until May 2017 for studies on ED patients with AASW. We defined the reference standard test as LAP for patients who were managed surgically and inpatient observation in those who were managed nonoperatively. In those who underwent LAP, THER-LAP was considered as disease positive. We used the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) to evaluate the risk of bias and assess the applicability of the included studies. We attempted to compute the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) using a random-effects model with MetaDiSc software and calculate testing and treatment thresholds for CT scan applying the Pauker and Kassirer model.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included encompassing 575 patients. The weighted prevalence of THER-LAP was 34.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.5%-38.2%). Studies had variable quality and the inclusion criteria were not uniform. The operating characteristics of CT scan were as follows: sensitivity = 50% to 100%, specificity = 39% to 97%, LR+ = 1.0 to 15.7, and LR- = 0.07 to 1.0. The high heterogeneity (I²  > 75%) of the operating characteristics of CT scan prevented pooling of the data and therefore the testing and treatment thresholds could not be estimated.

DISCUSSION

The articles revealed a high prevalence (8.7%, 95% CI = 6.1%-12.2%) of injuries requiring THER-LAP in patients with a negative CT scan and almost half (47%, 95% CI = 30%-64%) of those injuries involved the small bowel.

CONCLUSIONS

In stable AASW patients, a negative CT scan alone without an observation period is inadequate to exclude significant intraabdominal injuries.

Conservative versus operative management in stable patients with penetrating abdominal trauma: the experience of a Canadian level 1 trauma centre

BACKGROUND

The goal of conservative management (CM) of penetrating abdominal trauma is to avoid nontherapeutic laparotomies while identifying injuries early. Factors that may predict CM failure are not well established, and the experience of CM has not been well described in the Canadian context.

METHODS

We searched a Canadian level 1 trauma centre database for all penetrating abdominal traumas treated between 2004 and 2014. Hemodynamically stable patients without peritonitis and without clear indications for immediate surgery were considered potential candidates for CM, and were included in the study. We compared those who were managed with CM with those who underwent immediate operative management (OM). Outcomes included mortality and length of stay (LOS). Further analysis was performed to identify predictors of CM failure.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma were classified as potential candidates for CM. Ten patients were managed with OM, and 62 with CM, with 9 (14.5%) ultimately failing CM and requiring laparotomy. The OM and CM groups were similar in terms of age, sex, injury severity, mechanism and number of injuries. There were no deaths in either group. The LOS in the intensive care (ICU)/trauma unit was 4.8 ± 3.2 days in the OM group and 2.9 ± 2.6 days in the CM group (p = 0.039). The only predictor for CM failure was intra-abdominal fluid on computed tomography (CT) scan (odds ratio 5.3, 95% confidence interval 1.01-28.19).

CONCLUSION

In select patients with penetrating abdominal trauma, CM is safe and results in a reduced LOS in the ICU/trauma unit of 1.9 days. Fluid on CT scan is a predictor for failure.

Trends in nonoperative management of traumatic injuries - A synopsis

Nonoperative management of both blunt and penetrating injuries can be challenging. During the past three decades, there has been a major shift from operative to increasingly nonoperative management of traumatic injuries. Greater reliance on nonoperative, or "conservative" management of abdominal solid organ injuries is facilitated by the various sophisticated and highly accurate noninvasive imaging modalities at the trauma surgeon's disposal. This review discusses selected topics in nonoperative management of both blunt and penetrating trauma. Potential complications and pitfalls of nonoperative management are discussed. Adjunctive interventional therapies used in treatment of nonoperative management-related complications are also discussed.

REPUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION FROM

Stawicki SPA. Trends in nonoperative management of traumatic injuries - A synopsis. OPUS 12 Scientist 2007;1(1):19-35.

Self-inflicted injuries are an important cause of penetrating traumatic injuries in Japan

Aim

Japan has a low crime rate, but a high suicide rate. The aim of this study is to review the causes of penetrating traumatic injuries in a tertiary care emergency center in Japan.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all admissions for traumatic injuries over a 3-year period, and calculated the proportion of patients with penetrating traumatic injuries. Weapon used, age, gender, Injury Severity Score, cause of injury, and site of injury in all patients with penetrating injuries were reviewed. The proportion of patients with penetrating injuries among patients with all types of traumatic injuries requiring surgical intervention was calculated.

Results

Of 1,321 patients admitted over 3 years, 65 patients (5%) suffered from penetrating injuries. Most were stab wounds, with only one gunshot (2%). The most common site of injury was an extremity (48%). The most common cause of penetrating injury was self-inflicted (38%). The abdomen is the most common site injured among self-inflicted injuries. Of patients with all types of traumatic injuries requiring surgical intervention, penetrating injuries accounted for 23%.

Conclusion

Penetrating injuries represent 23% of all patients with traumatic injuries who required surgical intervention. Self-inflicted penetrating injuries were most common, supporting the need for preventive services. Acute care surgeons must be familiar with the surgical management of penetrating traumatic injuries, even in a country with a low crime rate.

Serial Clinical Examinations of 100 Patients Treated for Anterior Abdominal Wall Stab Wounds: A Cross Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The current approach in stab wounds of the anterior abdominal wall is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate serial clinical examinations of patients with abdominal wall stab wounds referred to Poursina Hospital in Rasht.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a cross sectional study, 100 cases with stab wounds to the anterior abdominal wall were examined serially (admission time, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours) after wound exploration. Serial hemoglobin test was performed every 8 hours. Laparotomy was performed in cases who were not hemodynamically stable or who showed symptoms of peritonitis. The results were analyzed with SPSS software version 21.

RESULTS

Ninety-one men (91%) and 9 women (9%) with mean age of 27 ± 10.7 years were included. Coexisting injuries were prevalent in 12 cases. The duration of hospitalization was 1 day in 31%, 2 days in 30%, 3 - 4 days in 32% and more than 5 days in 7%. Late laparotomy was performed 12 hours after admission in 8% of patients due to peritonitis. There was visceral damage in these cases. No mortality occurred. The cost and duration of hospitalization was significantly higher in cases with coexisting injuries and those who underwent laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems serial clinical examinations are safe and decrease the cost and duration of hospitalization in stable patients with anterior abdominal wall stab wounds.

Bowel obstructions and incisional hernias following trauma laparotomy and the nonoperative therapy of solid organ injuries: A retrospective population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) and incisional hernia (IH) represent the most common long-term complications of laparotomy. They may also be more common among injured patients than for elective/nontrauma emergency scenarios. Unfortunately, the population-based incidence of SBO and IH following trauma laparotomy is unknown. The aim of this study was to define the long-term, population-based incidence of SBO and IH following both trauma laparotomy as well as the nonoperative therapy of solid organ injuries.

METHODS

All injured patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center (2002-2013) who underwent (1) a laparotomy or nonoperative care of (2) splenic and/or (3) hepatic injuries were linked with the Alberta Health Services Discharge Database to identify all readmissions for subsequent SBO and/or IH within the province. Standard statistical methodology was used (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Of 484 patients who underwent a trauma laparotomy, 29 (6%) and 42 (9%) required readmission for SBO and IH, respectively (0.13 SBO and 0.10 IH admissions per patient year). Patients who underwent nonoperative management of their liver and/or spleen injuries displayed long-term SBO rates of 1% (6 of 619) and 0.7% (4 of 606), respectively. The rate of SBO and IH in patients with unnecessary laparotomies was equivalent to therapeutic procedures (p = 0.183). Topical hemostatic agents, repeat laparotomies, and injury pattern did not alter SBO or IH rates (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The population-based, long-term rate of clinically relevant SBO and IH following trauma laparotomies is 15%. This increases to 19% on a per-admission basis. Nontherapeutic scenarios, injury pattern, topical hemostatics, and open abdomens did not alter complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

Scanning and War: Utility of FAST and CT in the Assessment of Battlefield Abdominal Trauma

OBJECTIVE

To determine utilization and accuracy of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) and computed tomography (CT) in a mature military trauma system to inform service provision for future conflicts.

BACKGROUND

FAST and CT scans undertaken by attending radiologists contribute to surgical decision making for battlefield casualties at the Joint Force, Role 3 Medical Treatment Facility at Camp Bastion (R3), Afghanistan.

METHODS

Registry data for abdominally injured casualties treated at R3 from July to November 2012 were matched to radiological and surgical records to determine diagnostic accuracy for FAST and CT and their influence on casualty management.

RESULTS

A total of 468 casualties met inclusion criteria, of whom 85.0% underwent FAST and 86.1% abdominal CT; 159 (34.0%) had abdominal injuries. For detection of intra-abdominal injury, FAST sensitivity (Sn) was 0.56, specificity (Sp) 0.98, positive predictive value (PPV) 0.87, negative predictive value (NPV) 0.90, and accuracy (Acc) 0.89. For CT, Sn was 0.99, Sp 0.99, PPV 0.96, NPV 1.00, and Acc 0.99. Forty-six solid organ injuries were identified in 38 patients by CT; 17 were managed nonoperatively. A further 61 patients avoided laparotomy after CT confirmed extra-abdominal wounds only. The negative laparotomy rate was 3.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

FAST and CT contribute to triage, guide surgical management, and reduce nontherapeutic laparotomy. When imaging is available, these data challenge current doctrine about inadvisability of nonoperative management of abdominal injury after combat trauma.

Management of stab wounds to the anterior abdominal wall

The meeting of the Publication "Evidence Based Telemedicine - Trauma and Emergency Surgery" (TBE-CiTE), through literature review, selected three recent articles on the treatment of victims stab wounds to the abdominal wall. The first study looked at the role of computed tomography (CT) in the treatment of patients with stab wounds to the abdominal wall. The second examined the use of laparoscopy over serial physical examinations to evaluate patients in need of laparotomy. The third did a review of surgical exploration of the abdominal wound, use of diagnostic peritoneal lavage and CT for the early identification of significant lesions and the best time for intervention. There was consensus to laparotomy in the presence of hemodynamic instability or signs of peritonitis, or evisceration. The wound should be explored under local anesthesia and if there is no injury to the aponeurosis the patient can be discharged. In the presence of penetration into the abdominal cavity, serial abdominal examinations are safe without CT. Laparoscopy is well indicated when there is doubt about any intracavitary lesion, in centers experienced in this method.

Current management of penetrating torso trauma: nontherapeutic is not good enough anymore

A highly organized approach to the evaluation and treatment of penetrating torso injuries based on regional anatomy provides rapid diagnostic and therapeutic consistency. It also minimizes delays in diagnosis, missed injuries and nontherapeutic laparotomies. This review discusses an optimal sequence of structured rapid assessments that allow the clinician to rapidly proceed to gold standard therapies with a minimal risk of associated morbidity.

Abdominal trauma in durban, South Africa: factors influencing outcome

Abdominal injury as a result of both blunt and penetrating trauma has an appreciable mortality rate from hemorrhage and sepsis. In this article, we present our experience with the management of abdominal trauma in Durban and investigate factors that influence outcome. We performed a prospective study of patients with abdominal trauma in one surgical ward at King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban over a period of 7 years, from 1998 through 2004. Demographic details, cause of injury, delay before surgery, clinical presentation, findings at surgery, management and outcome were documented. There were 488 patients with abdominal trauma with a mean age of 29.2 ± 10.7 years. There were 440 penetrating injuries (240 firearm wounds; 200 stab wounds) and 48 blunt injuries. The mean delay before surgery was 11.7 ± 16.4 hours, and 55 patients (11%) presented in shock. Four hundred and forty patients underwent laparotomy, and 48 were managed nonoperatively. The Injury Severity Score was 11.1 ± 6.7, and the New Injury Severity Score was 17.1 ± 11.1. One hundred and thirty-seven patients (28%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), with a mean ICU stay of 3.6 ± 5.5 days. One hundred and thirty-two patients developed complications (28%), and 52 (11%) died. Shock, acidosis, increased transfusion requirements, number of organs injured, and injury severity were all associated with higher mortality. Delay before surgery had no influence on outcome. Hospital stay was 9.2 ± 10.8 days. The majority of abdominal injuries in our environment are due to firearms. Physiological instability, mechanism of injury, severity of injury, and the number of organs injured influence outcome.

Diagnostic laparoscopy after anterior abdominal stab wounds: worth another look?

BACKGROUND

The National Institute of Medicine's report Hospital-Based Emergency Care: At the Breaking Point highlighted the critical issue of emergency department overcrowding. At our institution, patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASW) have been managed with a protocol that uses diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) after positive result on local wound exploration. Patients with negative DL result are eligible for discharge directly from the recovery room. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of DL for AASWs in light of the recommendations that suggested serial abdominal examination (SAE) is preferred to determine the need for laparotomy.

METHODS

Patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center from January 2010 through August 2012 with AASWs were included (contemporary period to Western Trauma Association study). Information regarding baseline characteristics, diagnostic workup, injury management, and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed and compared with the SAE AASW algorithm.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients with AASWs were evaluated using our institutional algorithm. Thirty-eight patients (24%) went directly to the operating room for peritonitis, shock, or evisceration; 120 underwent local wound exploration; 99 had positive result (82%). Twenty-eight patients had immediate laparotomy owing to worsening clinical examination findings. Seventy had DL, and 19 of these patients were discharged home from the recovery room, with a mean length of stay of 6.4 hours. When comparing patients managed using the DL algorithm to those managed using the SAE-based algorithm, the nontherapeutic laparotomy rate was lower, although not statistically significant. However, the DL algorithm produced a significantly higher percentage of patients discharged directly home following local wound exploration.

CONCLUSION

With some trauma centers suffering from emergency department overcrowding and constrained resources, DL may offer an alternative to SAE to efficiently use available resources. Both SAE and DL are safe and offer similar therapeutic laparotomy rates. The method used to evaluate patients after AASW should be tailored to institutional needs and resources.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

The principles of non-operative management of penetrating abdominal injury

The selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal injury is gaining increasing acceptance. Recognition of the morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with non-therapeutic exploration has provided the impetus for selective management. This review describes the principles of, and evidence for, this strategy. Selective management is widely accepted for the treatment of stab wounds, but the selective management of ballistic injuries, particularly in the military setting, remains contentious. As a result, there are marked variations in the application of this practice. Computed tomography is a prerequisite for the selective management of ballistic injuries, and possibly also stab wounds. Failure of non-operative management, following stab wounds or gunshot wounds, is invariably apparent within 24 hours.

Management guidelines for penetrating abdominal trauma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with penetrating abdominal trauma are at risk of harboring life-threatening injuries. Many patients are in need of emergent operative intervention. However, there are clearly patients who can be safely managed nonoperatively. This review evaluates the literature to identify management guidelines for patients with penetrating abdominal trauma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accumulating evidence supports nonoperative management of patients with stab wounds to the thoracoabdominal region, the back, flank, and anterior abdomen. Furthermore, select patients with gunshot wounds can be safely managed nonoperatively.

SUMMARY

Shock, evisceration, and peritonitis warrant immediate laparotomy following penetrating abdominal trauma. Thoracoabdominal stab wounds should be further evaluated with chest X-ray, ultrasonography, and laparoscopy or thoracoscopy. Wounds to the back and flank should be imaged with CT scanning. Anterior abdominal stab wound victims can be followed with serial clinical assessments. The majority of patients with gunshot wounds are best served by laparotomy; however, select patients may be managed expectantly.

Laparoscopic-assisted minithoracotomy for repair of diaphragmatic penetrating trauma

BACKGROUND

Stable patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating or blunt trauma resulting in diaphragmatic injuries represent a challenging dilemma. Laparoscopy has emerged as the most reliable and efficient diagnostic and treatment modality for such patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze our novel surgical technique for the management of penetrating diaphragmatic injuries in stable patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we analyzed data that had been prospectively collected on a new surgical repair technique established at our institution. We reviewed the records of 7 hemodynamically stable trauma patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating trauma resulting in diaphragmatic injuries.

RESULTS

The 7 patients (5 with stab wounds, 2 with gunshot wounds) underwent laparoscopic exploration and laparoscopic-assisted minithoracotomy for the repair of diaphragmatic injuries. The mean length of stay was 4.4 days (range, 1 to 8 d). There were no tension pneumothoraces, missed injuries, or other procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

If complete laparoscopic repair is not possible, laparoscopic-assisted repair of diaphragmatic injuries using minithoracotomy is a viable option. In our 7 patients, the results were good, with no morbidity.

Non-operative management of abdominal gunshot wounds

Over the history of surgery, the management of abdominal gunshot wounds in the stable evaluable patient without peritonitis has evolved. While non-operative management has been widely accepted and employed for the management of abdominal stab wounds, recently it has been deemed a safe option for abdominal gunshot wounds as well. Selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal trauma in the appropriate setting has been shown to decrease the rate of nontherapeutic laparotomy as well as the cost and total length of hospital stay, and potentially decrease short- and long-term morbidity. This review examines the background support for non-operative management of abdominal gunshot wounds while discussing patient evaluation, selection, and clinical management.

Selective non-operative management of abdominal gunshot wounds: survey of practise

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of evidence attesting to the effectiveness and safety of selective non-operative management (SNOM) of abdominal gunshot wounds. However, much of the research which supports this conclusion has originated from a few centres, and the actual utilisation of SNOM by trauma surgeons is not known. We therefore conducted a survey to assess the acceptance of this strategy and evaluate variations in practise.

METHODS

Electronic questionnaire survey of trauma surgeons in the United States of America, Canada, Brazil, and South Africa. Responses were compared using Chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

183 replies were received. 105 (57%) respondents practise SNOM of abdominal gunshot wounds, but there are marked regional variations in the acceptance of this strategy (p<0.01). Respondents who had completed trauma (p<0.01) or critical care (p<0.01) fellowships, and those who practise in a higher volume centre (defined as >50 penetrating abdominal injuries seen per year) (p<0.01) are more likely to practise SNOM of gunshot wounds. Most surgeons who practise SNOM regard peritonitis, omental and bowel evisceration, and being unable to evaluate a patient as a contraindication to attempting non-operative management. Almost all regard CT as essential. Respondents' preparedness to consider SNOM is related to injury extent.

CONCLUSIONS

SNOM of abdominal gunshot wounds is practised by trauma surgeons in all four countries surveyed, but is not universally accepted, and there are variations in how it is practised.

Nontherapeutic laparotomy in combat casualties

BACKGROUND

The selective nonoperative management of ballistic abdominal injury remains contentious, particularly in the military setting. The exigencies of military practice have traditionally favored a more liberal approach to abdominal exploration. The driver for selective nonoperative management is the avoidance of morbidity incurred by nontherapeutic intervention. However, the incidence and complications of nontherapeutic laparotomy (NTL) in the military setting are not known.

METHODS

All UK military patients undergoing a laparotomy following battlefield trauma were identified from the UK Joint Theatre Trauma Registry. Procedures were classed as therapeutic laparotomy (TL) or NTL. Demographics, admission physiology, injury pattern, and mortality were compared, and complications in the NTL group were determined by Joint Theatre Trauma Registry and case record review.

RESULTS

Between March 2003 and March 2011, 130 (7.2%) of 1,813 combat wounded UK service personnel underwent a laparotomy. A total of 103 (79.2%) were considered TL, and 27 (20.8%) were NTL. There was no difference in demographic distribution or mechanism of injury. Patients undergoing TL were more likely to be hypotensive (systolic blood pressure, <90 mm Hg; p = 0.015) and have a reduced consciousness level (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score ≤ 8; p = 0.006). There was a greater abdominal injury burden in the TL group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in severe extra-abdominal injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score ≥ 3), overall Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New ISS (NISS) scores, or mortality. Of the 27 patients who underwent NTL, 7 (25.9%) developed complications.

CONCLUSION

During the past decade, trauma laparotomy has become a relatively uncommon procedure. The NTL rate is also relatively low. This finding could be explained by the fact that selective nonoperative management is used more widely in the military setting than previously thought or that very few military injuries are amenable to nonoperative management. NTL is associated with a significant risk of complications and should therefore be minimized but not at the expense of missing a life-threatening intra-abdominal injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

[A study of the predictive value of the primary review and complementary examinations in assessing the need for surgery in patients with stab wounds in the torso]

INTRODUCTION

Observation is the gold standard for stable patients with stab wounds. The aim of the study was to analyse the value of the primary review and complementary examinations to predict the need for surgery in stab wound patients in order to decrease observation times.

METHODS

A retrospective study of stab wound patients recorded in a database. Clinical and diagnostic workup parameters were analysed. The main variable was the need for surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients were included between 2006 and 2009, with a mean injury severity score (ISS) of 7.8±7, and 0.5% mortality. More than half (52%) of the patients suffered multiple wounds. Wound distribution was 23% neck, 46% thorax and 31% abdomen. Surgery was required in 73 (37%) patients (59% immediate, 27% delayed and 14% delayed). The need for surgery was associated with a lower revised trauma score (RTS), evisceration, active bleeding, and fascial penetration. Initial and control haemoglobin levels were significantly lower in patients who required surgery. A positive computerised tomography (CT) scan was associated with surgery. There were complications in 18% of patients, and they were more frequent in those who underwent surgery. There was no difference in complication rates between immediate and delayed (P=.72). Surgery was finally required in 10% of the patients with no abnormalities in the primary review and diagnostic workup, and 6% of those developed complications.

CONCLUSION

None of the parameters studied could individually assess the need for surgery. Primary and secondary reviews were the most important diagnostic tool, but CT scan should be used more often. An observation period of 24 hours is recommended in torso penetrating wounds.

Selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal injury in Great Britain and Ireland: survey of practice

BACKGROUND

The selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal injury is gaining increasing acceptance. In Great Britain and Ireland, the management of trauma remains the responsibility of general surgeons. This study appraises the acceptance and utilisation of selective non-operative management strategies by British and Irish general surgeons, compared with trauma surgeons in the United States of America.

METHODS

Electronic questionnaire survey of British and Irish consultant general surgeons and trauma surgeons in the United States of America.

RESULTS

139 British and Irish general surgeons and 75 US trauma surgeons completed the survey. 84.3% of British and Irish general surgeons and 94.4% of US trauma surgeons practise selective non-operative management of abdominal stab wounds, and 14.0% and 74.3% practise selective non-operative management of abdominal gunshot wounds. The management of those British and Irish surgeons who do practise selective non-operative management is broadly similar to that of US trauma surgeons, with the exception of the use of laparoscopy to examine the left hemidiaphragm following thoracoabdominal injuries, which is employed by fewer British and Irish general surgeons than US trauma surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

The selective non-operative management of abdominal stab wounds is generally accepted by British and Irish general surgeons. In contrast, few British and Irish surgeons are comfortable with non-operatively managing patients with abdominal gunshot wounds, reflecting both the rarity of this type of injury, and surgeons' training and experience. This proportion is unlikely to change until the management of torso trauma is recognised as a specialty, and services are concentrated in regional centres.

Validating the Western Trauma Association algorithm for managing patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds: a Western Trauma Association multicenter trial

The optimal management of stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASWs) remains a matter of debate. A recent Western Trauma Association (WTA) multicenter trial found that exclusion of peritoneal penetration by local wound exploration (LWE) allowed immediate discharge (D/C) of 41% of patients with AASWs. Performance of computed tomography (CT) scanning or diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) did not improve the D/C rate; however, these tests led to nontherapeutic (NONTHER) laparotomy (LAP) in 24% and 31% of cases, respectively. An algorithm was proposed that included LWE, followed by either D/C or admission for serial clinical assessments, without further imaging or invasive testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the algorithm in providing timely interventions for significant injuries.

METHODS

A multicenter, institutional review board-approved study enrolled patients with AASWs. Management was guided by the WTA AASW algorithm. Data on the presentation, evaluation, and clinical course were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-two patients (94% men, age, 34.7 years ± 0.3 years) were enrolled. Sixty-two (28%) had immediate LAP, of which 87% were therapeutic (THER). Three (1%) died and the mean length of stay (LOS) was 6.9 days. One hundred sixty patients were stable and asymptomatic, and 81 of them (51%) were managed entirely per protocol. Twenty (25%) were D/C'ed from the emergency department after (-) LWE, and 11 (14%) were taken to the operating room (OR) for LAP when their clinical condition changed. Two (2%) of the protocol group underwent NONTHER LAP, and no patient experienced morbidity or mortality related to delay in treatment. Seventy-nine (49%) patients had deviations from protocol. There were 47 CT scans, 11 DPLs, and 9 laparoscopic explorations performed. In addition to the laparoscopic procedures, 38 (48%) patients were taken to the OR based on test results rather than a change in the patient's clinical condition; 17 (45%) of these patients had a NONTHER LAP. Eighteen (23%) patients were D/C'ed from the emergency department. The LOS was no different among patients who had immediate or delayed LAP. Mean LOS after NONTHER LAP was 3.6 days ± 0.8 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The WTA proposed algorithm is designed for cost-effectiveness. Serial clinical assessments can be performed without the added expense of CT, DPL, or laparoscopy. Patients requiring LAP generally manifest early in their course, and there does not appear to be any morbidity related to a delay to OR. These data validate this approach and should be confirmed in a larger number of patients to more convincingly evaluate the algorithm's safety and cost-effectiveness compared with other approaches.

Ballistic thoracoabdominal injury: analysis of recent military experience in afghanistan

BACKGROUND

Military surgery has seen the arrival of the critical care provision and cross-sectional imaging enjoyed by civilian trauma surgeons. Ballistic injury to the thoracoabdominal region is uncommon but potentially devastating. The aim of this study was to analyze recent military experience of managing this injury complex.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective analysis of patients, admitted over a 12-month period, to the British Military Hospital in Afghanistan with ballistic thoracoabdominal injuries.

RESULTS

In total, 27 patients sustained combined thoracoabdominal injury with a mean new injury severity score of 29±12, revised trauma score of 5.94±2.93 and predicted survival of 71.1%±39.1%. In all, 20 (74%) patients underwent immediate operation, and 7 (26%) were initially managed nonoperatively. Of those requiring surgery, 11 required laparotomy and tube thoracostomy, and 9 required thoraco-laparotomy. Of the seven casualties who were initially observed and/or further investigated, two required laparotomy following computed tomography scanning, and five were managed conservatively, two of whom required delayed surgery. There were nine fatalities, all within 16 days of being wounded. Four patients died from exsanguination, one from a traumatic brain injury, and four from multiorgan failure. Five patients presented with cardiac arrest, two of whom survived.

CONCLUSIONS

Exploration remains the default treatment. Resuscitative thoracotomy may yield unexpected survivors, even if subsequent laparotomy is required. Nonoperative management appears to be feasible in a small proportion of patients but requires careful selection supported by cross-sectional imaging.

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.

An audit of failed non-operative management of abdominal stab wounds

Selective non-operative management based on clinical assessment has been shown to be a generally safe approach in the management of penetrating stab wounds of the torso. However there will be a subset of patients who fail selective non-operative management. This audit focuses on the failures.

METHODS

The metropolitan surgical service in Pietermaritzburg covers 3 hospitals. At the weekly metropolitan morbidity and mortality meeting all trauma patients are reviewed. All cases of failed selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal stab wounds are discussed. Failed non-operative management is usually defined as any patient who ultimately requires surgical exploration. We do not subscribe to this as we feel as long as the need for surgical intervention is recognised within a short period of time (<12h) there is little additional morbidity. Recognition of the need for surgical intervention after 12h would be regarded by us as failed non-operative management as we feel the risk of delay associated morbidity begins to increase significantly after this time.

RESULTS

A total of 340 patients with a penetrating anterior abdominal stab wound were managed over the 2 year period under review. A total of 192 (56%) of these patients were subjected to mandatory laparotomy. Of these mandatory laparotomies 98% were positive. The remaining 148 (44%) patients were observed. Of the 148 observed patients a total of 30 (20%) subsequently underwent surgery. A total of 13 patients were only taken to surgery after 12h of observation. In this group of 13 patients the average delay between admission and recognition of injury was 40 h. There were six gastric injuries, one pyloric and pancreatic injury, two gallbladder injuries, one liver, one colon and two small bowel injuries. There were no deaths. 9 patients recovered with no additional morbidity. In the remainder, morbidity included, relaparotomy (1), open abdomen (1), renal failure (1) and prolonged stay in ICU (3).

CONCLUSION

Clinical assessment accurately predicts the need for mandatory laparotomy following a stab wound to the torso. In patients who do not meet the indications for mandatory laparotomy and who are subjected to non-operative management 20% will come to surgery. A subgroup may only be recognised as requiring surgery after more than 12h. These patients are at risk of delay associated morbidity. There are particular anatomical sites and structures which are prone to error.

Laparoscopy in Abdominal Trauma

BACKGROUND

The decision in favor of surgery or nonoperative conservative treatment in blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma requires a precise diagnosis that is not always possible with imaging techniques, whereby there is great danger that an injury to the diaphragm or intestines may be overlooked. To avoid such oversights, indications for exploratory laparotomy have traditionally been generous, to the extent that up to 41% of exploratory laparotomies turn out to be nontherapeutic and could be, or could have been, avoided with laparoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A diagnostic laparoscopy with therapeutic option should only be attempted in stable patients. Three trocars are usually used and the abdomen is explored systematically, beginning with the right upper quadrant and continuing clockwise. Hollow viscus injuries and injuries to the diaphragm and mesentery can be detected and sutured laparoscopically. Injuries to parenchymal organs are not a primary focus of laparoscopy, but with a laparoscopic approach, they usually no longer bleed in stable patients and can be sealed with tissue adhesive and collagen tamponade to prevent re-bleeding.

RESULTS

The routine use of laparoscopy can achieve a sensitivity of 90-100% in abdominal trauma. This can reduce the number of unnecessary laparotomies and the related morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy can be performed safely and effectively in stable patients with abdominal trauma. The most important advantages are reduction of the nontherapeutic laparotomy rate, morbidity, shortening of hospitalization, and cost-effectiveness. In the future, new developments in and the miniaturization of equipment can be expected to increase the use of minimally invasive techniques in abdominal trauma cases.

Management of patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds: a Western Trauma Association multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASWs) remains controversial. The goal is to identify and treat injuries in a safe, cost-effective manner. Common evaluation strategies include local wound exploration (LWE)/diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), serial clinical assessments (SCAs), and computed tomography (CT) imaging. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the clinical course of patients managed by the various strategies, to determine whether there are differences in associated nontherapeutic laparotomy (NONTHER LAP), emergency department (ED) discharge, or complication rates.

METHODS

A multicenter, Institutional Review Board-approved study enrolled patients with AASWs. Management was individualized according to surgeon/institutional protocols. Data on the presentation, evaluation, and clinical course were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-nine patients were studied. Eighty-one had indications for immediate LAP, of which 84% were therapeutic. ED D/C was facilitated by LWE, CT, and DPL in 23%, 21%, and 16% of patients, respectively. On the other hand, LAP based on abnormalities on LWE, CT, and DPL were NONTHER in 57%, 24%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Twelve percent of patients selected for SCA ultimately had LAP (33% were NONTHER); there was no apparent morbidity due to delay in intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Shock, evisceration, and peritonitis warrant immediate LAP after AASW. Patients without these findings can be safely observed for signs or symptoms of bleeding or hollow viscus injury. To limit the number of hospital admissions, we propose a uniform strategy using LWE to ascertain the depth of penetration; the patient may be safely discharged in the absence of peritoneal violation. Peritoneal penetration, absent evidence of ongoing hemorrhage or hollow viscus injury, should not be considered an indication for LAP, but rather an indication for admission for SCAs. We suggest that a prospective multicenter trial be performed to document the safety and cost-effectiveness of such an approach.

[Gastrointestinal and mesenteric injuries in the trauma patient: incidence, diagnosis delay and prognosis]

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal and mesenteric injuries (GIMI) are uncommon in trauma patients, and their diagnosis are often delayed. Our aims were to determine the reliability of CT scan in our centre, and to assess the clinical significance of a delayed diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Retrospective analysis of cases confirmed at laparotomy. Patients were identified at the Severe Trauma Registry of Gregorio Marañón University General Hospital, between 1993 and 2006.

RESULTS

We found 105 (16.6%) GIMI out of 632 patients with abdominal trauma, in a Registry with 1495 severe trauma cases included. A total of 46% had blunt injuries. The mean injury severity score (ISS) and new ISS (NISS) were 20 and 25, respectively. There were 9 (8.5%) deaths, 4 of which were unexpected. A CT scan was performed in 56 (53%) cases, and only in 37 there were signs suggestive of a GIMI. In another 43 (41%) patients an urgent laparotomy was indicated because of positive clinical findings or instability. Surgery was delayed for more than 8 hours in 21 (20%) patients, the most common reason being a false negative result in the CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of GIMI was high in our centre (31% due to penetration and 10.7% blunt trauma). Several factors, such as the initial lack of symptoms, a low diagnostic sensitivity of the CT scan (34% false negatives), and the non-surgical management of solid organ injuries, have contributed to a delayed diagnosis and treatment in one out of each five patients in our series, but this has not led to a significant increase in septic complications in this group.