Potentially low-value operative care in abdominal trauma: A retrospective National Trauma Data Bank study

BACKGROUND

We currently lack national data on adherence to American College of Surgeons recommendations on nonoperative management for hemodynamically stable adults with solid-organ injuries. We aimed to estimate the incidence and interhospital variation in potentially low-value operative management for adults with blunt solid abdominal organ injuries.

METHODS

We included adults with blunt solid-organ injury eligible for nonoperative management (grades I-IV spleen and liver and grade I-III kidney, hemodynamically stable on arrival, and no blood products used in the emergency department) who were admitted to trauma centers in the United States that submitted data to the National Trauma Data Bank between 2016 and 2019. Low-value operative management was defined as laparotomy within 6 hours of admission. Interhospital variation was measured using risk-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficients (<5% low, 5-20% moderate, and >20% high).

RESULTS

In total, 62,601 adults in 324 American College of Surgeons-verified level I-III trauma centers and 297 state-designated centers were included. Adjusted incidences of potentially low-value operative management were 2.7% overall (6.8%, 2.1%, 0.8%, for spleen, liver, and kidney injuries) and 2.6%, 2.5%, and 3.0% for American College of Surgeons-verified level I, level II, and state-designated centers. Interhospital variation was moderate to high with a global intraclass correlation coefficient of 21% and intraclass correlation coefficients of 18%, 25%, and 21% for American College of Surgeons-verified level I, level II, and state-designated trauma centers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that low-value operative management is uncommon in US trauma centers, but variation between same-level trauma centers is moderate to high. Future research should strive to identify determinants, and assess impact on patient outcomes.

Updates on Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy in the Management of Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review

The purpose of this review is to contrast laparotomy with laparoscopy for penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) in terms of efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes. A thorough search across four databases identified 416 relevant publications. After removing duplicates using Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute (QCRI) and screening for relevance, 36 full-text articles were reviewed, with five studies ultimately meeting the criteria for inclusion. There were 336 patients throughout five trials, with 273 (812%) of them being male. In total, 211 patients had laparoscopy, whereas 125 underwent laparotomy. From 2.9% to 17.9%, there was a conversion rate from laparoscopic to open approach. The review highlights that laparoscopy generally results in fewer complications compared to laparotomy, especially in stable individuals who have experienced piercing abdominal trauma. Laparoscopy is associated with shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and fewer postoperative issues such as wound infections. However, in cases of retroperitoneal injuries or active bleeding, higher conversion rates to open surgery were observed. Despite these limitations, laparoscopy proves to be an effective and less invasive option for managing selected cases of abdominal trauma, reducing overall healthcare costs and postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopy offers a minimally invasive, practical choice for treating piercing abdominal injuries, especially in stable patients, with fewer postoperative complications and faster recovery compared to laparotomy. However, its limitations in managing more complex injuries warrant careful patient selection and readiness to convert to open surgery when necessary. It will take more investigation, especially randomized studies, to confirm laparoscopy's place in this sector.

Role of laparoscopic surgery in blunt abdominal trauma; retrospective analysis in a tertiary trauma center

PURPOSE

Trauma is a significant health concern globally and is one of the leading causes of illness and death. The laparoscopic approach has gained popularity in trauma care since its inception, becoming increasingly favored for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. This study aims to reduce unnecessary laparotomies and assess the effectiveness of laparoscopy in managing patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

METHODS

The study is a descriptive retrospective study using the medical records of patients with blunt abdominal trauma who were managed with laparoscopy in the Department of General Surgery, King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. The study period was from 2019 to 2023 and included patients > 18 years with abdominal blunt injury, hemodynamically stable patients, and responding to resuscitation. The relationship between laparoscopic procedures according to the patient's demographic and characteristics was conducted using the Fischer Exact test and independent sample t-test. Values were considered significant with a p-value of less than 0.05.

RESULTS

In this study, 74 patients were included, with 94.6% being males. The average age of the patients was 36.3 years (standard deviation of 12.5 years). The primary cause of trauma was motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), accounting for 91.9% of cases. The most common surgical approach used was laparotomy, performed in 71.6% of patients. Additionally, CT scans revealed that solid organ injuries were the most frequently detected type of injury, occurring in 41.9% of cases. Following surgery, 78.4% of the patients underwent therapeutic procedures after laparotomy, while 37.8% received therapeutic interventions post-laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

While laparoscopic techniques have been used for decades in abdominal surgeries, a consensus on their effectiveness and accuracy in diagnosing blunt abdominal injuries in trauma settings is still lacking. Laparoscopy is considered safe and feasible for hemodynamically stable patients, and our findings suggest it is equally effective in trauma cases for those who can tolerate the procedure. We recommend conducting further studies with larger sample sizes and more variables to provide sufficient data to accurately assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy in trauma situations.

Diagnostic Laparoscopy in Trauma Patients: Do We Need to Open and See if We Can See Without Opening?

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) has been advocated to reduce the incidence of nontherapeutic laparotomies (NL) among stable trauma patients. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of hemodynamically stable trauma patients undergoing DL versus NL.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database over 4 y (2017-2020). Hemodynamically stable (systolic blood pressure >90 & heart rate < 120) adult (≥18 y) trauma patients undergoing DL or NL were included. Patients were stratified into DL and NL and substratified based on the mechanism of injury (blunt versus penetrating) and compared.

RESULTS

Over 4 y, 3801 patients were identified, of which, 997 (26.2%) underwent DL. Overall, 25.6% sustained blunt injuries. The mean (SD) age was 39 (16) and 79.5% were male. The median injury severity score and abdominal abbreviated injury scale were 4 [4-9] and 1 [1-2], with no difference among study groups (P ≥ 0.05). The overall mortality and major complication rates were 2.8% and 13.2%, respectively. After controlling for potential confounding factors, DL was independently associated with lower odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.10, 95% CI [0.04-0.29], P < 0.001) and major complications (adjusted odds ratio: 0.38, 95% CI [0.29-0.50], P < 0.001) and shorter hospital length of stay (β: -1.22, 95% CI [-1.78 to -0.67], P < 0.001). The trends toward improved outcomes in the DL group remained the same in the subanalysis of patients with penetrating and blunt injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

With advances in minimally invasive surgery, unnecessary exploratory laparotomy can be avoided in many trauma patients. Our study shows that hemodynamically stable patients undergoing DL had superior outcomes compared to those with NL.

Role of laparoscopic surgery in managing hemodynamically stable abdominal trauma patients: a single level I trauma center, propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment and diagnosis of penetrating thoraco-abdominal injury has been established. However, there is no clear consensus on the role of laparoscopy in blunt injury due to numerous reasons, such as concerns of missed injury and technical problems in treating various abdominal organs. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of laparoscopy and evaluate its safety in managing blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma.

METHODS

The medical records and Korean Trauma Data Base (KTDB) of patients who underwent abdominal surgery from January 2018 to December 2022 at a single level I center were collected. Patients were classified into a laparoscopy group and a laparotomy group. The laparoscopy groups were matched 1:1 with the laparotomy group by using propensity score matching (PSM). Patient demographics, injured organ and its grade, operative procedure, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 128 patients were included. There was no significant imbalance in demographics between the two groups except sex. Injured organ and its grade showed no significant differences between the two groups except for the incidence of omentum. Small bowel and mesenteric repair were performed most often in both groups. Splenectomy, pancreatic surgery, duodenectomy, and liver resection were performed exclusively in the laparotomy group. Severe postoperative complication rate (3% vs. 20%: p = 0.004), length of stay in ICU (3.3 ± 3.2 days vs. 4.6 ± 3.7; p = 0.046), and operation time (93.9 ± 47.7 min vs. 112.8 ± 57.7; p = 0.046) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. The conversion rate was about 16%. There was no missed injury.

CONCLUSIONS

In hemodynamically stable abdominal trauma patients who sustained penetrating or blunt injury, laparoscopy is feasible and safe as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in selected cohort of abdominal trauma.

Laparoscopic surgery: An effective alternative for managing severe blunt splenic injuries in patients who are ineligible for transcatheter arterial embolization

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is an effective alternative to nonoperative management (NOM) to improve the spleen salvage rate for patients with blunt splenic injuries (BSIs), but it is not always available at some institutions. Moreover, laparoscopy has also been used to diagnose and treat trauma, including BSIs.

METHODS

We present our 11-year experience in performing laparoscopic surgery for spleen salvage in patients with severe BSIs when TAE is infeasible. The outcomes of laparoscopic surgery or TAE for spleen salvage in hemodynamically stable patients with severe BSIs were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients underwent interventions for severe BSIs during this period. Twenty patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 36 underwent TAE. There were no significant differences in demographics, preoperative conditions, or clinical characteristics (all p > 0.05). In the laparoscopic surgery group, 15 patients (75 %) underwent laparoscopic splenorrhaphy for spleen salvage surgery, and five (25 %) required splenectomy. No complications requiring intervention were observed in the laparoscopic surgery group, whereas three patients in the TAE group required a late splenectomy for splenic abscess. No significant differences were detected in the splenic preservation rate, complication rate, or length of hospital stay between the groups (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is feasible and safe for managing hemodynamically stable patients with severe BSIs, and the outcomes are comparable to those of TAE. When TAE is infeasible, laparoscopy can be considered an alternative to increase the spleen salvage rate.

Assessment of Outcomes in Laparotomy vs Laparoscopy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Patients Sustaining Single Penetrating Left Upper Quadrant Injury

BACKGROUND

We aim to compare outcomes between laparotomy and laparoscopy in trauma patients with single penetrating left upper quadrant injuries.

METHODS

Using a 1:1 propensity score match, a retrospective study was conducted utilizing data from the ACS-TQP-PUF between 2016 and 2019. Adults sustaining a single penetrating left upper quadrant injury who received either a laparotomy or laparoscopy were included for analysis. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU-LOS, H-LOS, and complication rates. Multivariable regression and reliability adjustments were performed to control for confounding.

RESULTS

486 patients receiving laparotomy were matched to 486 patients receiving laparoscopy. No differences in inpatient mortality (1.2% vs 2.9%, aOR: 2.92, 95% CI: .32, 26.31); however, patients undergoing laparotomy experienced higher complication rates (7.0% vs 1.2%, aOR: 9.61, 95% CI: 1.94, 47.48), pRBC transfusions (21.8% vs 6.4%, aOR: 3.19, 95% CI: 1.66, 6.13), and H-LOS (Mean ± SD: 8.1 ± 9.8 vs 3.9 ± 4.0, P = .0002). Lower ISS (1 - 15) undergoing laparotomy had more complications (4.3% vs .7%, aOR: 13.52, 95% CI: 1.39, 131.69), pRBC transfusions (13.9% vs 4.9%, aOR: 3.21, 95% CI: 1.53, 6.75), and H-LOS (Mean ± SD: 6.7 ± 7.1 vs 3.6 ± 3.2, P < .0001). There were no differences in mortality among patients with a lower ISS (1.5% vs .4%, aOR: 77.2, 95% CI: (<.001, >999).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparotomy is associated with increased rates of complications for single penetrating LUQ trauma. For patients with low ISS, laparoscopy is associated with better outcomes without increase in mortality.

The Role of Diagnostic Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Abdominal Trauma Patients: A Trauma Quality Improvement Program Study

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify factors related to delayed intervention in abdominal trauma patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy using a nationwide databank.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2019, abdominal trauma patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy were retrospectively evaluated using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Patients who underwent delayed interventions after a primary diagnostic laparoscopy were compared with those who did not. Factors associated with poor outcomes that are usually correlated with overlooked injuries and delayed interventions were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 5221 studied patients, 4682 (89.7%) underwent inspection without any intervention. Only 48 (0.9%) patients underwent delayed interventions after primary laparoscopy. Compared with patients receiving immediate interventions during primary diagnostic laparoscopy, patients receiving delayed interventions were more likely to have small intestine injuries (58.3% vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001). Among patients with hollow viscus injuries, a significantly higher probability of overlooked injuries that required delayed intervention was observed in patients with small intestine injuries (small intestine injury: 16.8%; gastric injury: 2.5%; large intestine injury: 5.2%). However, delayed small intestine repair did not significantly affect the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.249), acute kidney injury (AKI) (p = 0.998), or hospital length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.053). In contrast, significantly positive relationships between delayed large intestine repair and poor outcomes were observed (SSI, odds ratio = 19.544, p = 0.021; AKI, odds ratio = 27.368, p < 0.001; LOS, β = 13.541, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most examinations and interventions (near 90%) were successful during primary laparoscopy for abdominal trauma patients. Small intestine injuries were easily overlooked. Delayed small intestine repair-related poor outcomes were not observed.

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.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Laparoscopy for Abdominal Trauma: A Single Surgeon’s Experience at a Level I Trauma Center

PurposeLaparoscopy has various advantages over laparotomy in terms of postoperative recovery. The number of surgeons using laparoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in abdominal trauma patients is increasing, whereas open conversion is becoming less common. This report summarizes a single surgeon’s experience of laparoscopy at a level I trauma center and evaluates the feasibility of laparoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for abdominal trauma patients. MethodsIn total, 30 abdominal trauma patients underwent laparoscopy by a single surgeon from October 2014 to May 2020. The purpose of laparoscopy was categorized as diagnostic or therapeutic. Patients were classified into three groups by type of surgery: total laparoscopic surgery (TLS), laparoscopy-assisted surgery (LAS), or open conversion (OC). Univariate analysis was performed to determine the advantages and disadvantages. ResultsThe mechanism of injury was blunt in 19 (63.3%) and penetrating in 11 patients (36.7%). Eleven (36.7%) and 19 patients (63.3%) underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy, respectively. The hospital stay was shorter for patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy than for those who underwent therapeutic laparoscopy (5.0 days vs. 13.0 days), but no other surgical outcomes differed between the groups. TLS, LAS, and OC were performed in 12 (52.2%), eight (34.8%), and three patients (13.0%), respectively. There was no significant difference in morbidity and mortality among the three groups. ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for selected cases of abdominal trauma may be feasible and safe as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in hemodynamically stable patients due to the low OC rate and the absence of fatal morbidity and mortality.

Minimally invasive splenectomy in grade IV splenic trauma: A case report associated with high-grade renal trauma

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

In closed abdominal trauma, the spleen is the most frequently injured organ (30-45%). Splenic lesions grades IV-V have higher failure rates with nonoperative management (NOM). The minimally invasive approach is an alternative when NOM fails. This is the first reported case of a patient with splenic and left renal trauma, both grade IV, with combined management, which consisted of a minimally invasive surgical resolution of the splenic trauma and a conservative management of the renal trauma, with a satisfactory recovery of the patient. This contributes to understanding the benefits of minimally invasive surgery in moderate splenic trauma associated with other high-grade injuries.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a 45-year-old woman with a multiple trauma after a motorbike vs car traffic accident. On physical examination, she was hemodynamically stable, with abdominal guarding and generalized rebound tenderness associated with multiple upper and lower limb fractures. An abdominal CT scan revealed grade IV splenic and left renal trauma, with moderate hemoperitoneum. A minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for hemoperitoneum drainage and splenectomy was performed.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

There is currently no consensus to define the indications for minimally invasive treatment on splenic trauma. While laparotomy is the standard treatment, it is not without potential severe complications, while laparoscopy providing a treatment option in selected cases with hemodynamic stability.

CONCLUSION

The role of the minimally invasive approach is safe and feasible in selected patients with high-grade splenic lesions and hemodynamic stability, including the association with other organic lesions such as kidney trauma.

Laparoscopic Management of Blunt and Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: A Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature

Introduction: Trauma is a leading cause of death in young patients. The prevalence of blunt and penetrating trauma varies widely across the globe. Similarly, the global experience with laparoscopy in trauma patients also varies. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that laparoscopy is feasible in trauma patients. We sought to contribute to these data by reporting our experience with laparoscopic management of blunt and penetrating trauma in a Belgian center. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on all trauma patients admitted to the Saint-Pierre University Hospital in Brussels, Belgium, over the 4-year period from January 2014 to December 2017. Hospital records for patients subjected to exploratory laparoscopy were retrospectively reviewed, and a descriptive analysis was reported. Results: There were 26 patients at a mean age of 40 years treated with laparoscopic exploration for injuries from blunt trauma (7), stab wounds (14), and gunshot injuries (5). The median interval between the arrival at the emergency unit and diagnostic laparoscopy was 175 minutes (range: 27-1440), and the median duration of operation was 119 minutes (range: 8-300). In all patients who underwent laparoscopy for trauma, there were 27% overall morbidity, no mortality, 11% reoperation rate, 7.4% conversions, and 19% incidence of negative laparoscopy. The median intensive care unit stay was 3 days (range: 0-41), and median total hospital stay was 7 days (range: 2-78). Conclusions: Laparoscopy is a safe, feasible, and effective tool in the surgical armamentarium to treat hemodynamically stable patients with blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. It allows complete and thorough evaluation of intra-abdominal viscera, reduces the incidence of nontherapeutic operations, and allows therapeutic intervention to repair a variety of injuries. However, it requires appropriate surgeon training and experience with advanced laparoscopic techniques to ensure good outcomes.

Surgeon choice in management of pediatric abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

No guidelines exist for management of hemodynamically stable children with suspected hollow viscus injury. We sought to determine factors contributing to surgeon management of these patients.

METHODS

Surgeon members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Pediatric Surgical Association completed a survey on 3 blunt abdominal injury scenarios: (1) isolated, (2) with multisystem injury, and (3) with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and a penetrating injury scenario. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with initial management of observation vs. operation for blunt injury and observation vs. local wound exploration versus laparoscopy for penetrating injury.

RESULTS

Of 394 surgeons (response rate 22.3%), 50.3% were pediatric surgeons. For scenarios 1-3, 32.2%, 49.3%, and 60.7% of surgeons chose operation over observation, respectively. Compared to isolated blunt injury, surgeons were more likely to choose operation for patients with multisystem injury (aOR 2.20, 95%CI: 1.78-2.72) or TBI (aOR 3.60, 95%CI: 2.79-4.66). Pediatric surgeons were less likely to choose operation (aOR 0.32, 95%CI: 0.22-0.44). For penetrating injury, 39.1%, 29.5%, and 31.5% of surgeons chose observation, local wound exploration, and laparoscopy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Large variation exists in management of hemodynamically stable children with suspected hollow viscus injury. Although patient injury characteristics account for some variation, surgeon factors such as type of surgeon also play a role. Evidence-based practice guidelines should be developed to standardize care.

TYPE OF STUDY

Cross-Sectional Survey.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Bull horn injuries. A 40-year retrospective study with 572 patients

BACKGROUND

Although bullfighting festivals were traditionally attributed to the cultural idiosyncrasies of the Ibero-American people, they also exist world-wide.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted, reviewing the medical records of patients treated on our service for bull horn injuries between January 1978 and December 2019.

RESULTS

There were 572 admissions due to bull horn injuries. 54 of these patients had multiple injuries. The average annual admission was 13.6 patients. The most frequent injuries were located in the lower extremities, perineum, and abdomen. Forty-seven laparotomies were performed, revealing intra-abdominal visceral impairment on 39 occasions. The most frequently injured organs were the intestine and liver. The most frequent complications were skin devitalisation, infection and post-operative eventration. The recorded mortality was 0.87%.

CONCLUSION

We wish to highlight the importance of injuries caused by bull horns worldwide. These are high-impact injuries with specific intrinsic characteristics that require regulated medical and surgical care.

Successful Laparoscopic Repair of Posttraumatic Diaphragmatic Injury

Diaphragmatic injuries can be a direct result of penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma such as gunshot or stab wounds. Diaphragmatic rupture can lead to herniation of intra-abdominal organs into the thoracic cavity. Diagnosis can be difficult as the results of a physical exam can be unremarkable. A CT scan of the chest is diagnostic for diaphragmatic injuries. In most emergency cases, diaphragmatic injuries are managed with laparotomy where CT was diagnostic. We report a rare case of a 25-year-old man with right diaphragmatic injury sustained after a stab wound to the right liver managed successfully with laparoscopy.

Laparoscopy Compared With Laparotomy for the Management of Pediatric Blunt Abdominal Trauma

BACKGROUND

There is minimal evidence evaluating the risks and benefits of laparoscopy use in hemodynamically stable children with suspected abdominal injuries. The objective of this study was to evaluate postoperative outcomes in a large cohort of hemodynamically stable pediatric patients with blunt abdominal injury.

METHODS

Using the 2015-2016 National Trauma Data Bank, all patients aged <18 y with injury severity score (ISS) ≤25, Glasgow coma scale ≥13, and normal blood pressure who underwent an abdominal operation for blunt abdominal trauma were included. Patients were grouped into three treatment groups: laparotomy, laparoscopy, and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. Treatment effect estimation with inverse probability weighting was used to determine the association between treatment group and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of 720 patients, 504 underwent laparotomy, 132 underwent laparoscopy, and 84 underwent laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. The median age was 10 (IQR: 7-15) y, and the median ISS was 9 (IQR: 5-14). Mean hospital length of stay was 2.1 d shorter (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-3.2 d) and mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1.1 d shorter (95% CI: 0.6-1.5 d) for the laparoscopy group compared with the laparotomy group. The laparoscopy group had a 2.0% lower mean probability of surgical site infection than the laparotomy group (95% CI: 1.0%-3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of hemodynamically stable pediatric patients with blunt abdominal injury, laparoscopy may have improved outcomes over laparotomy.

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.

[Value of laparoscopy in blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma-a systematic review]

BACKGROUND

The range of indications for laparoscopic procedures has been continuously widened in recent years. At the same time, however, the diagnostic and therapeutic role of laparoscopy in the management of blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed from 2008 to 2019 on the use of laparoscopy in blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. Studies were analyzed in terms of relevant operative and perioperative event rates (rate of missed injuries, conversion rate, postoperative complication rate). On the basis of this analysis, an algorithm for the use of laparoscopy in abdominal trauma was developed for clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 15 full texts with 5869 patients were found. With a rate of 1.4%, laparoscopically missed injuries were very rare for both penetrating and blunt abdominal trauma. Of all trauma laparoscopies 29.3% were converted to open surgery (laparotomy). Among the non-converted laparoscopies 60.5% were therapeutic. Complications occurred after trauma laparoscopy in 8.6% of cases.

CONCLUSION

By means of systematic laparoscopic exploration, missed injuries in abdominal trauma are extremely rare, so that concerns in this respect no longer seem justified. A large proportion of intra-abdominal injuries can be treated using laparoscopy or laparoscopically assisted procedures.

No need for surgery? Patterns and outcomes of blunt abdominal trauma

Introduction

The management of a patient suffering from blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) remains a challenge for the emergency physician. Within the last few years, the standard therapy for hemodynamically stable patients with BAT has transitioned to a non-operative approach. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcome of patients with BAT and to determine the reasons for failure of non-operative management (NOM).

Materials and methods

Analysis of 176 consecutive patients treated for BAT was conducted in a German level 1 trauma center from 2004 to 2011. Abdominal injuries were classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST). Patients included were demonstrated to have objective abdominal trauma with either free fluid on focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) or computed tomography (CT), or proven organ injury.

Results

Patients, 142 of 176 (80.7%), with BAT were initially managed non-operatively, with a success rate of 90%. The rates of NOM success were higher among those with less severe injuries; 100% with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of 1. In total, 125 patients (71.0%) were managed non-operatively, and 51 (29.0%) required surgical intervention. NOM failure occurred in 9.2% of the patients, the most common reason being initially undiagnosed intestinal perforation (46.2%). Positive correlation was identified (r = 0.512; p < 0.001) between the ISS (injury severity score) and the NACA (National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics) score. The delay in operation in NOM failure was 6 h in patients with underlying hepatic or splenic rupture and 34 h with intestinal perforation. The overall mortality of 5.1% was attributed especially to old age (p = 0.016), high severity of injury (p < 0.001), and greater need for blood transfusion (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

NOM was successful for the vast majority of blunt abdominal trauma patients, especially those with less severe injuries. NOM failure and operative delay were most commonly due to occult hollow viscus injury (HVI), the detection of which was achieved by close clinical observation and abdominal ultrasound in conjunction with monitoring for rising markers of infection and by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) if additionally indicated. Based on this concept, the delay in operation in patients with NOM failure was short. This study underscores the feasibility and benefit of NOM in BAT.

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.

[Early clinical care strategy for severely injured patients with abdominal trauma]

BACKGROUND

The presence of abdominal injuries has a major impact on the mortality of severely injured patients. For injuries that require surgery, laparotomy is still the gold standard for early surgical care; however, there is increasing evidence that laparoscopy may be an alternative in the early clinical care of polytrauma patients.

OBJECTIVE

The present registry-based study analyzed the utilization and the outcome of laparoscopy in severely injured patients with abdominal trauma in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 12,447 patients retrieved from the TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU) was performed. The primary inclusion criteria were an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 9 and an abbreviated injury scale (AIS) [abdomen] ≥ 1. The included patients were grouped according to early treatment management: (1) laparoscopy, (2) laparotomy and (3) non-operative management (NOM). Finally, group-specific patient characteristics and outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were treated by NOM (52.4%, n = 6069), followed by laparotomy (50,6%, n = 6295) and laparoscopy (0.7%, n = 83). The majority of laparoscopies were performed in patients with an AIS [abdomen] ≤ 3 (86.7%). The ISS of the laparoscopy group was significantly lower compared to that of the laparotomy and NOM groups (ISS 23.4 vs. 34.5 vs. 28.2, respectively, p ≤ 0.001). The standardized mortality rate (SMR), defined as the ratio between observed and expected mortality, was lowest in the patients receiving laparoscopy followed by laparotomy and NOM (SMR 0.688 vs. 0.931 vs. 0.932, respectively, p-value = 0.2128) without achieving statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Despite being rarely employed the data indicate the effectiveness of laparoscopy for the early treatment of severely injured, hemodynamically stable patients with an AIS [abdomen] ≤ 3.

Laparoscopic management of retroperitoneal injuries from penetrating abdominal trauma in haemodynamically stable patients

Background:

Laparoscopy is increasingly utilised in the trauma setting. However, its safety and reliability in evaluating and managing retroperitoneal injuries are not known.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to analyse our experience with laparoscopic management of retroperitoneal injuries due to penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) and to investigate its feasibility, safety and accuracy in haemodynamically stable patients.

Methods:

Over a 4-year period, patients approached laparoscopically with retroperitoneal injuries were analysed. Mechanism, location and severity of injuries were recorded. Surgical procedures, conversion rate and reasons for conversion and outcomes were described.

Results:

Of the 284 patients with PAT, 56 patients had involvement of retroperitoneum. Stab wounds accounted 62.5% of patients. The mean Injury Severity Score was 7.4 (4–20). Among retroperitoneal injuries, the colon (27%) was the most commonly involved hollow viscera followed by duodenum (5%). The kidney (5%) and the pancreas (4%) were the injured solid organs. The conversion rate was 19.6% and was mainly due to active bleeding (73%). Significantly more patients with gunshot wound were converted to laparotomy (38% vs. 9%). Therapeutic laparoscopy was performed in 36% of patients. There were no recorded missed injuries or mortality. Five (9%) patients developed the Clavien-Dindo Grade 3 complications, three were managed with reoperation, one with drainage/debridement and one with endovascular technique.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic management of retroperitoneal injuries is safe and feasible in haemodynamically stable patients with PAT. However, a high conversion rate indicates difficulties in managing these injuries. The requirements are the dexterity in laparoscopy and readiness to convert in the event of bleeding.

Laparoscopy for blunt abdominal trauma: a challenging endeavor

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma is challenging because of multiple associated injuries, higher trauma score values and higher morbidity and mortality, as compared with patients with penetrating abdominal trauma. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of laparoscopy in the management of blunt abdominal trauma patients and to highlight related challenges.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 4-year period, patients managed laparoscopically for blunt abdominal trauma were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative details, indications for laparoscopy and conversion, complications, and length of hospital stay were discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 35 stable patients underwent laparoscopy. The mean Injury Severity Score was 12 (4-38). Therapeutic laparoscopy was performed in 15 (56%) and diagnostic in 12 (44%) patients. Eight (23%) patients were converted to therapeutic laparotomy. Intraoperative bleeding, complex injuries, visualization problem, and equipment failure necessitated conversion. Three (30%) patients with negative computed tomography scan had therapeutic laparoscopy for mesenteric injuries. There were no missed injuries. The mean length of hospital stay was 11 days in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy for stable patients is feasible and safe. Multiple injuries make laparoscopy more difficult, and advanced laparoscopic skills are required. The conversion rate is high; however, the non-therapeutic laparotomies were completely eliminated in this study.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Laparoscopy has been used for the diagnosis and treatment for hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating abdominal trauma. This study evaluated whether diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy can be used as effectively in select patients with blunt abdominal trauma. All hemodynamically stable patients undergoing operations for blunt abdominal trauma over a 10-year period (2006–2015) at a tertiary medical center were included. Patients undergoing laparotomy were categorized as group A. Patients who underwent laparoscopy were categorized as group B. The clinical outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. There were 139 patients in group A and 126 patients in group B. Group A patients were more severely injured (mean injury severity score of 23.3 vs. 18.9, P < .001) and had a higher frequency of traumatic brain injuries (25.2% vs. 14.3%, P = .039). The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic laparoscopy for patients in group B was 99.1% and 100.0%, respectively. No non-therapeutic laparotomies were performed in group B, and the success rate of therapeutic laparoscopy was 92.0% (103/112) for patients with significant intra-abdominal injuries. Patients in the 2 groups had similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes in terms of operation times, blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, mortality, and complications (all, P > .05). Laparoscopy is a feasible and safe tool for the diagnosis and treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma who require surgery.

Laparoscopy in Blunt Abdominal Trauma: for Whom? When?and Why?

The management of blunt abdominal trauma has evolved over time. While laparotomy is the standard of care in hemodynamically unstable patients, stable patients are usually treated by non-operative management (NOM), incorporating adjuncts such as interventional radiology. However, although NOM has shown good results in solid organ injuries, other lesions, namely those involving the hollow viscus, diaphragm, and mesentery, do not qualify for this approach and need surgical exploration. Laparoscopy can substantially reduce additional surgical aggression. It has both diagnostic and therapeutic potential and, when negative, may reduce the number of unnecessary laparotomies. Although some studies have shown promising results on the use of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma, randomized controlled studies are lacking. Laparoscopy requires adequate training and experience as well as sufficient staffing and equipment.

A Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for the Management of Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to systematically review and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopy with laparotomy for abdominal trauma patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopy with laparotomy for abdominal trauma patients. Clinical endpoints included length of hospital stay, operation time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, time to postoperative exhaust, time to regular diet, time to out of bed, duration of postoperative pain, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rate, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, missed injuries, conversions to laparotomy, and cure rate.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies including 9058 patients with abdominal trauma were included. In these studies, laparoscopy was used as a screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic tool. Meta-analysis showed significant reductions in the incidence of postoperative complications (relative risk [RR] [95 % confidence interval (CI)] 0.37 [0.29-0.46]), perioperative mortality rate (RR 0.64; 95 % CI 0.52-0.80), operation time (mean difference [MD] [95 % CI] -19.93 min [-34.43 to 5.43]), length of hospital stay (MD -5.15 days; 95 % CI -6.80 to 3.50), amount of intraoperative blood loss (MD -141.33 ml; 95 % CI -260.99 to 21.67), time to postoperative exhaust (MD -5.32 h; 95 % CI -8.60 to 2.05), time to regular diet (MD -3.46 h; 95 % CI -6.31 to 0.61), time to out of bed (MD -23.51 h; 95 % CI -24.85 to 22.16), duration of postoperative pain (MD -21.34 h; 95 % CI -22.65 to 20.03), length of ICU stay (MD -1.89 days; 95 % CI -4.05 to 0.27) in patients with abdominal trauma treated with laparoscopy compared with laparotomy. The pooled incidence of postoperative complications, missed injuries, conversions, and perioperative mortality rate of laparoscopy among the case reports were 0.04 (95 % CI 0.03-0.06), 0.01 (95 % CI 0.01-0.02), 0.24 (95 % CI 0.20-0.28), 0.01(95 % CI 0.01-0.02), respectively. Cure rate of laparoscopy ranged from 46 to 95 % and the pooled rate was 0.76 (95 % CI 0.71-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is an effective way to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce the complications of hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal trauma. It is worth further popularization in clinical practice.

Laparoscopic repair of posttraumatic diaphragmatic rupture. Report of three cases

INTRODUCTION

Posttraumatic diaphragmatic rupture (PTDR) is a rare complication of thoracoabdominal injuries. In the emergency phase, it is generally treated via wide laparotomy. The laparoscopic approach is controversial and it is reserved for the chronic type of PTDR. Herein we present three cases of laparoscopic treatment of PTDR, one of which was conducted early after the injury.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

The patients' age was 42, 66 and 53 years and the time from the injury until the operation 1 week, 2 months and 4 years, respectively. Hernia involved the left hemidiaphragm in two patients and the right hemidiaphragm in the second patient. Prolapsing viscera were the omentum/stomach/spleen, the small intestine and the omentum/large bowel, respectively. The PTDR was diagnosed right after the injury of the first patient but its treatment was postponed until the fourth day of hospitalization because of severe respiratory distress due to bilateral pneumothorax, flail chest and extended bilateral lung contusions. All patients underwent laparoscopic operation and correction of the hernia with the use of non-absorbable sutures or endoclips in two patients. There were no serious intra- or postoperative complications and the patients were discharged 30, 5, 6 days after the operation. After a period of 1, 8 and 9 years, respectively the patients remain without clinical evidence of recurrence.

DISCUSSION

Trauma is the major cause of acquired diaphragmatic hernias.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is an attractive approach for the management of chronic PTDR. Moreover, it may offer the benefits of minimally invasive surgery during the acute phase of injury in highly selected patients.

Through the 10-mm Looking Glass: Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery in Trauma

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly being used in trauma surgery as both a diagnostic and a therapeutic tool. However, significant debate regarding the accuracy, safety, and indications for minimally invasive surgery in trauma continues to impede widespread acceptance of these techniques among trauma surgeons.

METHOD

Herein, we report a contemporary review of the current role of both laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in modern trauma surgery. Literature search was performed using PubMed database and the following keywords: "Trauma," "Minimally Invasive Surgery," "Laparoscopy," and "Thoracoscopy."

RESULTS

Current recommendations advocate for the use of laparoscopy as a diagnostic tool in penetrating trauma for the diagnosis of diaphragm injuries and peritoneal violation. A significant body of research demonstrates that laparoscopy in select hemodynamically normal patients can significantly decrease nontherapeutic laparotomy rates and hospital costs and is highly sensitive and specific with very low missed injury rates, including small bowel injuries. Laparoscopic repairs to a wide breadth of abdominal and thoracic injuries have been reported with impressive results. Adherence to a standardized laparoscopic examination system and routine use of laparoscopy in elective or acute care practice strongly influence positive results with minimally invasive surgery in trauma. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is most commonly used for evaluation of diaphragm, evacuation of retained hemothorax, and management of ongoing bleeding post-trauma.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery does offer several advantages compared to traditional open surgery and should be considered as an additional tool in the trauma surgeon's armamentarium in the care of select injured patients.

Preliminary Experience of Sandwich Repair Technique

Background. Laparoscopic splenectomy has been used safely for patients with blunt splenic trauma and failed nonoperative management. Reports of using laparoscopic splenorraphy for spleen salvage were fewer and mainly limited to lower grades of injuries. No study has focused on the role of laparoscopic splenorraphy in the treatment of patients with high grades of splenic injuries. Methods. Medical records of 15 patients with high grades of splenic injuries that required an operation for failed nonoperative management were retrospectively reviewed. They underwent a new technique of sandwich repair laparoscopically for spleen salvage by 3 surgeons who had adequate training in laparoscopy for trauma. Preoperative parameters, sandwich repair technique, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. Fourteen of the 15 (93.3%) patients underwent the technique successfully with 1 patient converting to laparotomy. The median (interquartile range) time to reach hemostasis was 30.0 (26.0-40.0) minutes, and the median overall operation time was 135.0 (120.0-165.0) minutes. Median blood loss amount was 1300.0 (750.0-2300.0) mL. The median length of hospital stay was 8.0 (7.0-11.0) days, and the intensive care unit stay was 2.0 (0.0-4.0) days. No mortality was noted. No rebleeding, total splenic infarction, or intra-abdominal abscess was noted during 3-month follow-up after the operation. Conclusions. The preliminary results show that laparoscopic splenorraphy by the “sandwich repair technique” is feasible and safe for patients with high-grade splenic injuries.