Laparoscopy in the evaluation of the intrathoracic abdomen after penetrating injury.

Penetrating trauma to the intrathoracic abdomen is a difficult clinical problem, especially with reference to the detection of diaphragmatic injuries. A retrospective analysis of 657 laparotomies for penetrating abdominal trauma at our institution revealed 78 laparotomies with negative results. The majority (44.8%) were for wounds in the lower chest and upper abdomen. The role of laparoscopy in evaluating these difficult areas was studied in 40 (34 stab wounds and 6 gunshot injuries) patients. Fifteen stab wounds and five gunshot wounds were nonpenetrating. Laparoscopy revealed eight clinically unsuspected diaphragmatic lacerations in seven patients. Twenty patients had hemoperitoneum. Five patients with omental bleeding and abdominal wall bleeding and four with nonbleeding liver lacerations underwent nontherapeutic laparotomies. One patient with a nonbleeding liver laceration was observed successfully without laparotomy. Ten of the 20 patients with hemoperitoneum had therapeutic laparotomies. The incidence of diaphragmatic lesions discovered by laparoscopy in this series was comparable with that reported after a mandatory laparotomy for thoracoabdominal wounds. It is concluded that laparoscopy is an excellent modality for the evaluation of the intrathoracic abdomen and the diaphragm.     

Laparoscopy in the diagnosis of blunt and penetrating injuries to the abdomen.

Laparoscopy was evaluated in thirty-seven patients from a group of 132 consecutive patients who were treated for blunt or penetrating injury to the abdomen. A total of twenty-three patients underwent laparoscopy and laparotomy. The findings at laparotomy correlated with laparoscopy. Fourteen patients underwent laparoscopy only, and there were no proved false-negative results. Of the 132 patients considered for laparotomy, 118 underwent abdominal exploration. Laparotomy was considered unnecessary in twenty-five of the 118 patients (21 per cent) and in retrospect, laparoscopy could have identified in each patient the presence of a minor injury or no injury at all. Laparoscopy is a useful method for evaluating blunt and penetrating injuries to the abdomen in selected patients.     

Impact of increased use of laparoscopy on negative laparotomy rates after penetrating trauma

BACKGROUND: Our institution was one of the first to report the use of laparoscopy in the management of penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) in 1977. Despite early interest, laparoscopy was rarely used. Changes in 1995 resulted in an increase in interest and use of laparoscopy. We present our recent experience with laparoscopy. METHODS: Our trauma registry and operative log were used to identify patients with blunt and penetrating injuries to the abdomen, back, and flank who underwent laparotomy or laparoscopy during the past 5 years. Patient demographics, operative findings, complications, and length of stay were reviewed. The number of laparoscopic explorations, therapeutic, nontherapeutic, and negative laparotomies were trended. RESULTS: There were 429 abdominal explorations for trauma. The rate of laparoscopy after penetrating injury increased from 8.7% to 16%, and after stab wounds from 19.4% to 27%. There was an associated decrease in the negative laparotomy rate. Laparoscopy prevented unnecessary laparotomy in 25 patients with PAT. Four patients with diaphragm injuries underwent repair laparoscopically. CONCLUSION: An aggressive laparoscopic program can improve patient management after PAT.     

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.     

Cost analysis of diagnostic laparoscopy vs laparotomy in the evaluation of penetrating abdominal trauma

Background: Diagnostic laparoscopy for the evaluation of injuries in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma has been shown to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with mandatory laparotomy. The overall impact on patient care and hospital costs has not been thoroughly investigated. The goal of this study was to determine the economic impact of laparoscopy as a diagnostic tool in the management of patients following penetrating trauma to the abdomen or flank. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating trauma to the abdomen or flank, but without other injuries requiring emergent intervention, admitted to a level I trauma center between January 1, 1992, and September 30, 1994. Those patients who underwent either laparoscopy (DL) or laparotomy (NL) or both (CONV) and who had no intraabdominal organ injuries requiring surgical therapeutic intervention were included in the study. Age, operative time, operative findings, length of hospitalization, Injury Severity Score (ISS), variable costs, and total costs were recorded for each patient. Results: Fourteen patients underwent negative/nontherapeutic laparoscopy (DL), 19 patients underwent negative/nontherapeutic laparotomy (NL), and four patients underwent both laparoscopy and laparotomy, a conversion procedure (CONV). There was no significant difference in age, operative times, or ISS between the DL and NL groups. Mean ISS of CONV patients was significantly greater than that of DL patients, 5.75 ± 1.97 vs 2.43 ± 0.63 (p < 0.05). Mean operative time for CONV patients was also significantly greater than both DL and NL patients, 106.5 ± 17.00 min vs 66.1 ± 6.55 and 47.3 ± 7.50 min, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the DL group as compared to the NL or CONV groups, 1.43 ± 0.20 vs 4.26 ± 0.31 and 5.0 ± 0.82 (p < 0.0001). The variable costs for the DL group were significantly lower than those incurred by patients in the NL and CONV groups, $2,917 ± 175 vs $3,384 ± 102 and $3,774 ± 286, (p < 0.05). Variable costs were not significantly different between the NL and CONV groups. Total costs were also significantly lower in the DL group when compared to NL and CONV, $5,427 ± 394 vs $7,026 ± 251 and $7,855 ± 750 (p < 0.005), but again, they were not statistically different between the NL and CONV groups. The overall total costs for laparoscopy, including the costs incurred by conversion patients, was significantly less than the total costs for laparotomy patients, $5,664 ± 394 vs $7,028.47 ± 250 (p < 0.005). This resulted in an overall savings of $1,059.44 per laparoscopy performed. The overall negative/nontherapeutic laparotomy rate during this study was 19.1%, which was significantly lower than the negative or nontherapeutic exploration rate during the time period prior to the use of laparoscopy (p < 0.01, z = 2.550). Conclusion: Variable and total costs and length of stay were significantly lower in our population of patients who underwent DL as compared to NL. The rate of negative or nontherapeutic laparotomy was also significantly reduced when compared to the rate identified during the era prior to the use of laparoscopy. Laparoscopy resulted in an overall savings of $1,059 per laparoscopy performed when compared to laparotomy. Received: 11 March 1996/Accepted: 5 July 1996     

Diagnostic laparoscopy for the evaluation of occult diaphragmatic injury following penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma

BACKGROUND: Occult diaphragmatic injury following penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma can be difficult to diagnose. Radiographic findings are often non-specific or absent. Undetected injuries may remain clinically silent, only to present later with life-threatening complications associated with diaphragmatic herniation. Diagnostic laparoscopy allows for the evaluation of trauma patients lacking clinical indications for a formal laparotomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of occult diaphragmatic injury and investigate the role of laparoscopy in patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma who lack indications for exploratory laparotomy except the potential for a diaphragmatic injury. METHODS: Haemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma without indications for laparotomy (haemodynamic instability, evisceration, or peritonitis on exam) and evaluated with diagnostic laparoscopy to determine the presence of a diaphragmatic injury were retrospectively reviewed. Thoracoabdominal wounds were defined as wounds bounded by the nipple line over the anterior and posterior chest superiorly and the costal margin inferiorly. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients were evaluated for penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries (80 stabs and 28 gunshots) over the study period. 22 (20%) diaphragmatic injuries were identified. These were associated with injuries to the spleen (5), stomach (3) and liver (2). There was a greater incidence of haemopneumothorax (HPTX) in patients with diaphragmatic injury (32%) compared to those without injury (20%). 29% of patients with a HPTX had a diaphragmatic injury. However, 18% of patients with a normal chest radiograph were also found to have a diaphragmatic injury. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of diaphragmatic injury associated with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma is high. Clinical and radiographic findings can be unreliable for detecting occult diaphragmatic injury. Diagnostic laparoscopy provides a vital tool for detecting occult diaphragmatic injury among patients who have no other indications for formal laparotomy.     

Selective celiotomy for missile wounds of the abdomen based on laparoscopy

The role of laparoscopy in the selective management of gunshot wounds (GSW) of the abdomen was prospectively investigated in 38 patients. All the patients were hemodynamically stable and had equivocal evidence of intraabdominal penetration. Laparoscopy was performed in the operating room under anesthesia. The site of penetration was in the thoracoabdominal area in 13, epigastrium in 7, and lower quadrants in 18. Twenty-three (60.5%) had nonpenetration on laparoscopy and a laparotomy was avoided. The remaining patients had injuries to the liver (4 patients), spleen (two patients), diaphragm (3 patients), hemoperitoneum or retroperitoneal hematoma (6 patients), and hollow viscus injuries (5 patients). Laparoscopy was also helpful in determining the need for laparotomy vs thoracotomy in lower chest wounds. The negative laparoscopy group (no penetration) had a significantly lower hospital stay compared to hemodynamically stable patients who had negative laparotomy without laparoscopy for nonpenetrating GSW. There were no complications related to laparoscopy. Laparoscopy is a useful modality in the evaluation of hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal missile wounds.Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 3 April 1993     

Laparoscopy is sufficient to exclude occult diaphragm injury after penetrating abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND: Occult diaphragm injury after penetrating thoracoabdominal injury can be difficult to diagnose and can remain occult for months to years. Delayed diagnosis is associated with the risk of hernia formation, strangulation, and high morbidity and mortality. Although laparoscopy has been proposed as a means of evaluating the diaphragm in these patients, prior studies did not include a confirmatory procedure or did not report long-term follow-up. Thus, true sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of laparoscopy for the detection of diaphragm injury after penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma. We hypothesized that laparoscopy alone is sufficient to exclude diaphragm injury after penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma. METHODS: We conducted a prospective case series of 34 hemodynamically normal asymptomatic patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating injuries. All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to evaluate the diaphragm for the presence of injury. All patients then underwent confirmatory celiotomy (n = 30) or video-assisted thoracoscopy (n = 4). RESULTS: All patients were men between the ages of 18 and 54 years. There were 37 stab wounds and 1 gunshot wound. The mean lowest preoperative systolic blood pressure recorded was 120 +/- 18 mm Hg. Penetrating injuries were stratified by anatomic location (anterior, 18; posterior, 8; flank, 9; not specified, 3). There were 7 true-positive, 30 true-negative, no false-positive, and 1 false-negative result. Specificity, sensitivity, and negative predictive value were 100%, 87.5%, and 96.8%, respectively. The single missed injury occurred in a patient with hemoperitoneum from associated splenic injury that obscured the diaphragm and warranted celiotomy. CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic hemodynamically normal patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injury, laparoscopy alone is sufficient to exclude diaphragmatic injury.     

Evaluation of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the diagnosis of diaphragmatic injuries

: Injury to the diaphragm from penetrating or blunt thoracoabdominal trauma is notoriously difficult to diagnose. Chest radiography, computed tomography scan, contrast studies, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, and laparoscopy are inadequate; thus, celiotomy is commonly performed in patients with suspected diaphragmatic injury. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with that of exploratory celiotomy in the evaluation of diaphragmatic and thoracoabdominal injury. : Hemodynamically stable patients admitted to a level I trauma center with blunt or penetrating injury to the lower chest or abdomen underwent VATS and subsequent celiotomy under the same general anesthetic. Intraoperative thoracoscopic findings were blinded to the abdominal surgeons. : Twenty-six patients were enrolled in the study over a 12-month period. Diaphragmatic injuries were identified in 8 patients (31%). Videothoracoscopy identified all eight injuries in these patients. Six of the 8 patients (75%) with diaphragmatic injuries sustained associated injury to intrathoracic or intra-abdominal organs. There was no mortality and no procedure-related morbidity. There were no missed injuries in patients who underwent VATS. : Video-assisted thoracoscopy is a safe, expeditious, and accurate method of evaluating the diaphragm in injured patients, and is comparable in diagnostic accuracy to exploratory celiotomy.     

Laparoscopy in penetrating wounds of the abdomen]

Within the recent 5 years, the authors observed 103 sufferers with penetrating injury to the abdomen. Operated on were 79 patients. Of them, 39 underwent explorative laparotomy. Laparoscopy was performed in obscure diagnosis in sufferers with associated trauma who were unconscious, in those with the signs of alcohol intoxication, in drug addicts etc. The advantages of the use of laparoscopy in the diagnosis, and in some patients--in the treatment of injuries were noted.     

Video thoracoscopy expedites the diagnosis and treatment of penetrating diaphragmatic injuries

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic workup in stable patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries can be extremely difficult. Conventional diagnostic tests such as plain chest radiography, computed tomography scan, digital exploration, and diagnostic peritoneal lavage can be misleading. Classically, most of these patients have undergone exploratory laparotomy to determine whether there is a diaphragmatic injury. METHODS: In this study, 52 patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma, and without any indication for immediate surgery, underwent video-assisted thoracoscopy to determine the presence of diaphragmatic injuries. RESULTS: Of the 52 patients, 48 were men. The left hemithorax was involved in 38 patients (73%). Chest x-ray was normal in 40 patients (77%) who were clinically asymptomatic. Stab wounds were responsible for 80% of the injuries. At the time of the thoracoscopy, 35 patients (67%) were found to have a diaphragmatic injury. All 35 diaphragmatic injuries were successfully repaired thoracoscopically. The procedure was completed in 50 patients (96%). There were no deaths or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of diaphragmatic injuries is higher than anticipated in asymptomatic patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal wounds. Video thoracoscopy can be used as a safe, expeditious, minimally invasive, and extremely useful technique to facilitate the diagnosis of these injuries in asymptomatic patients. Furthermore, diaphragmatic injuries can be repaired easily through a thoracoscopic approach with no complications.     

Laparoscopic evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal traumatic injuries

Background

General surgeons’ recent familiarity with advanced laparoscopic techniques have rendered laparoscopy feasible safely in the trauma setting. Traditionally high rates of nontherapeutic laparotomies also contribute to this increased interest. This study was undertaken to determine the predictive value and accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma.

Methods

Entry criteria included thoracoabdominal gunshot (GSW) or stab wounds (SW) in otherwise hemodynamically stable patients. A high index of suspicion for either hemoperitoneum, peritonitis, or diaphragmatic injury was required for inclusion. All patients underwent DL in the operating room followed by standard laparotomy. The findings of the two evaluations were compared.

Results

Twenty-four patients were included in the study. Twenty males and 4 females with an average age of 34 years made up the group. Violation of the peritoneal cavity was present in 21 cases and absent in 3. No intraabdominal injuries were found during laparotomy in the latter three cases without peritoneal violation. The specificity and positive predictive value were 100% for lesions of the diaphragm, liver, spleen, pancreas, kidney, and hollow viscus. The sensitivity was highest for liver and spleen injuries (88%), followed by diaphragmatic injuries (83%), pancreas and kidney injuries (50%), and lowest for injuries of hollow viscus (25%). The negative predictive value was 95, 99, 91, and 57%, respectively, for these organs.

Conclusions

DL could have avoided unnecessary laparotomy in 38% of cases in this study. There were no complications related to laparoscopy. The greatest value of DL in penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries is in the evaluation of peritoneal violation, diaphragmatic, and upper abdominal solid-organ injuries. It is not ideal for predicting hollow viscus injuries.     

Diaphragmatic injuries: recognition and management in sixty-two patients.

Between 1979 and 1989, 62 patients were treated for traumatic injury of the diaphragm. Forty-five had penetrating injuries following stab wounds or gunshot wounds, and 17 had diaphragmatic tears from motor-vehicle and auto-pedestrian accidents. Forty-one patients sustained left-sided injuries; 20 patients sustained right sided injuries; and one patient sustained bilateral ruptures. All patients underwent exploratory laparotomy and diagnosis was confirmed at surgery. Diaphragmatic injury was suspected in only 17 (27%) patients preoperatively. The chest radiograph showed nonspecific abnormalities in 48 (77%) patients and was diagnostic in 15 (24%) patients. Six patients had diagnostic peritoneal lavage; five were positive and one was negative. Computerized tomography (CT) of the lower thorax and abdomen was performed on 11 (18%) patients, but not one scan was diagnostic. Fluoroscopy in two patients was helpful. All patients had other associated injuries. The liver, spleen, or stomach were frequently injured in association with penetrating diaphragmatic lacerations. Bony fractures, splenic injuries, and head trauma were more commonly found with blunt diaphragmatic ruptures. The average hospital stay for the penetrating injuries was 11 days and for blunt trauma was 16 days. The operative mortalities was 2 per cent for penetrating injuries and 12 per cent for blunt injuries.     

Laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal injuries]

An experience with treatment of 138 patients with penetrating punctured-incised wounds of the abdominal cavity has shown advantages of laparoscopy in diagnostics of the character of injuries of internals. Laparoscopy used in cases with difficult diagnosis allowed to give up operative interventions in 53.8% of patients. High diagnostic value and relative safety of laparoscopy make it possible to widely use this method in wounds of the abdomen.     

Laparoscopy in the evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma

The evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma for the presence of a diaphragmatic injury presents a diagnostic challenge to the trauma surgeon. The use of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in this setting was reviewed at a level-one trauma institution. Eighty patients (71 males, 9 females) with penetrating injuries to the thoracoabdominal region underwent DL to rule out injury to the diaphragm. Fifty-eight patients (72.5%) had a negative study and were spared a celiotomy. In the remaining 22 patients (27.5%), injury to the diaphragm was identified. This subset of patients underwent a mandatory celiotomy to rule out an associated intra-abdominal injury. Seventeen out of 22 (77.2%) patients had a positive exploration requiring surgical intervention, representing an associated intra-abdominal injury rate of 21.2 per cent. Intra-abdominal injuries requiring repair included small bowel, colon, spleen, liver, and stomach, in descending order. There were no missed injuries or deaths. One patient with a left diaphragmatic injury secondary to a stab wound developed a subdiaphragmatic abscess. Respiratory insufficiency secondary to atelectasis was the most common complication. Diagnostic laparoscopy is an essential and safe modality for the evaluation of diaphragmatic injuries in penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma.     

Use of laparoscopy in evaluation and treatment of penetrating and blunt abdominal injuries

Use of laparoscopy in penetrating trauma has been well established; however, its application in blunt trauma is evolving. The authors hypothesized that laparoscopy is safe and feasible as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in both the patients with penetrating and blunt trauma. Trauma registry data and medical records of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopy for abdominal trauma were reviewed. Over a 4-year period, 43 patients (18 blunt trauma / 25 penetrating trauma) underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy. Conversion to laparotomy occurred in 9 (50%) blunt trauma and 9 (36%) penetrating trauma patients. Diagnostic laparoscopy was negative in 33% of blunt trauma and 52% of penetrating trauma patients. Sensitivity/specificity of laparoscopy in patients with blunt and penetrating trauma was 92%/100% and 90%/100%, respectively. Overall, laparotomy was avoided in 25 (58%) patients. Use of laparoscopy in selected patients with blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma is safe, minimizes nontherapeutic laparotomies, and allows for minimal invasive management of selected intra-abdominal injuries.     

Treatment of isolated penetrating flank trauma

We present our experience during the past 5 years with isolated penetrating flank trauma. We examined the evaluation process, treatment plan, length of stay, outcome, and complications of patients with isolated penetrating injuries to the flank. There were four patient groups: 1) laparotomy (n = 5); 2) local wound exploration (n = 1); 3) laparoscopy (n = 8); and 4) observation and triple contrast CT scan (n = 9). All patients were male. The mean length of stay was 15 days for group 1, one day for group 2, two days in group 3, and 1.5 days in group 4. Three patients had diaphragmatic injuries, which were repaired laparoscopically. One patient with local wound exploration re-presented with a diaphragm hernia. A negative triple contrast CT scan resulted in no subsequent intervention. There were no missed injuries or complications from CT scan + observation or from diagnostic laparoscopy. We believe that laparoscopy may emerge as a useful adjunct in the treatment of patients with flank trauma. We present an algorithm for the management of penetrating flank trauma.     

Laparoscopy for the Acute Abdomen in the Postoperative Urologic Patient

Objectives. Exploratory laparotomy offers the greatest diagnostic accuracy of intra-abdominal pathologic processes, but can be associated with significant morbidity. Laparoscopy provides diagnostic capabilities equivalent to that of open exploration, but with potentially less morbidity. We present 3 cases in which laparoscopy was used to diagnose and manage urologic patients with an acute abdomen in a postoperative period.Methods. Three patients underwent laparoscopy between 1 and 14 days postoperatively for an acute abdomen (fever, elevated white blood cell count, and peritoneal signs). The initial procedures included a pubovaginal sling repair with fascia lata, endoscopic placement of a percutaneous gastrostomy tube, and a laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for a distal stone.Results. In each of the 3 patients laparoscopy revealed misplacement or malfunction of a previously placed tube. In all cases, the patient was managed laparoscopically without the need for laparotomy.Conclusions. These cases demonstrate the feasibility of laparoscopy to provide diagnostic and therapeutic solutions to postoperative urologic patients presenting with an acute abdomen.     

Role of Laparoscopy in Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review

Background

Debate remains regarding the optimum role of laparoscopy in the setting of trauma although it can offer advantages over traditional exploratory laparotomy. Laparoscopy can be a screening, diagnostic or therapeutic tool in trauma. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma

Methods

The PUBMED database was searched with the keywords “Laparoscopy AND Trauma”. Additional citation searching and searching of the grey literature was conducted. Relevant studies were chosen on the basis of the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and quality was assessed where appropriate using the Downs and Black checklist

Results

In total, 51 studies were included in the analysis of which only 13 were prospective. In most studies, laparoscopy was used as a screening, diagnostic or therapeutic tool. In total, 2569 patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) for penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT), 1129 (43.95 %) were positive for injury. 13.8 % of those with injury had a therapeutic laparoscopy. In total 33.8 % were converted to laparotomy, 16 % of which were non-therapeutic and 11.5 % of them were negative. 1497 patients were spared a non-therapeutic laparotomy. Overall, 72 patients suffered complications, there were 3 mortalities and 83 missed injuries. Sensitivity ranged from 66.7–100 %, specificity from 33.3–100 % and accuracy from 50–100 %. 23 of the 50 studies reported sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 100 %, including the four most recent studies. In general the quality of the reported studies was poor. When used for cohort studies, the mean Downs and Black checklist score was 13.25 out of a possible total of 28.

Conclusions

In summary, laparoscopy in PAT may have an important role in a selected subgroup of patients, with surgeon expertise also an important factor. Laparoscopy has screening, diagnostic and therapeutic roles, particularly where diaphragm injury is suspected. It is extremely sensitive in determining need for laparotomy but detects hollow visceral injuries less reliably. It has potential as a therapeutic tool in centres with appropriate expertise. The development of specific guidelines or protocols may increase the value of laparoscopy in trauma but this would require more evidence of a higher quality.