Laparoscopy for Penetrating Thoracoabdominal Trauma: Pitfalls and Promises

Background:

How should the stable patient with penetrating abdominal or lower chest trauma be evaluated? Evolving trends have recently included the use of diagnostic laparoscopy. In September 1995 we instituted a protocol of diagnostic laparoscopy to identify those patients who could safely avoid surgical intervention.

Design:

Prospective case series.

Materials and Methods:

Hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating injuries to the anterior abdomen and lower chest were prospectively evaluated by diagnostic laparoscopy, performed in the operating room under general anesthesia, and considered negative if no peritoneal violation or an isolated nonbleeding liver injury had occurred. If peritoneal violation, major organ injury or hematoma was noted, conversion to open celiotomy was undertaken.

Results:

Seventy consecutive patients were evaluated over a two-year period. The average length of stay (LOS) following negative laparoscopy was 1.5 days, and for negative celiotomy 5.2 days. There were no missed intra-abdominal injuries following 30 negative laparoscopies, and 26 of 40 laparotomies were therapeutic. The technique also proved useful in evaluation of selected blunt and HIV+ trauma vic-tims with unclear clinical presentations. However, while laparoscopy was accurate in assessing the abdomen following penetrating lower chest injuries, significant thoracic injuries were missed in 2 out of 11 patients who required subsequent return to OR for thoracotomy.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopy has become a useful and accu-rate diagnostic tool in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Nevertheless, laparoscopy still carries a 20% nontheraputic laparotomy rate. Additionally, significant intrathoracic injuries may be missed when laparoscopy is used as the pri-mary technique to evaluate penetrating lower thoracic trauma.