Diagnostic laparoscopy for penetrating injuries in the thoracoabdominal region

Background The role of laparoscopy in diagnosis of penetrating abdominal injuries is still controversial. In the present investigation diagnostic laparoscopy was studied in penetrating injuries of the thoracoabdominal region.Methods Between March 1998 and June 2003, 43 patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries underwent diagnostic laparoscopy at the Rambam Medical Center. There were 41 males and two females; the average age was 30 years (range, 16–54 years). Thirty-one patients had a lower chest injury, eight patients had an upper abdomen and flank injury, and four patients had combined chest and abdomen injuries. In 11 patients intraperitoneal penetration was diagnosed. In 10 patients the procedure was converted to open laparotomy, and one patient with a small laceration of the right diaphragm opposite the liver was observed without laparotomy.Results The average operating time for the laparoscopy was 25 min (10–45 min), and 85 min (40–175 min) for laparotomy. Patients who underwent laparoscopy were discharged after an average of 1.6 (1–3) days, while those who underwent laparotomy were discharged after an average of 7.6 (2–15) days.Conclusions Laparoscopy is a useful diagnostic tool in penetrating injuries of the chest, thoracoabdominal region, and flank. This procedure is particularly reliable in diaphragmatic tears. Laparoscopy should be considered the procedure of choice for the evaluation of penetrating injuries of the lower chest and upper abdomen for diagnosis of peritoneal penetration.     

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.     

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.     

A prospective analysis of diagnostic laparoscopy in trauma.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to assess current and potential future application for laparoscopy (DL) in the diagnosis of penetrating and blunt injuries. Efficacy, safety, and cost analyses were performed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) and computed tomography (CT) have been the mainstays in recent years for diagnosis of equivocal nontherapeutic laparotomy, whereas CT is not helpful for the vast majority of penetrating wounds. DL may be a useful adjunct to fill in these gaps. METHODS: Hemodynamically stable patients with equivocal evidence of intraabdominal injury were prospectively entered into the protocol. DL was performed under general anesthesia; patients with wounds penetrating the peritoneum or blunt injury with significant organ injury underwent laparotomy. RESULTS: Over 19 months, 182 patients (55% stab, 36% GSW, 9% blunt) were studied. No peritoneal penetration was found at DL in 55% of penetrating wounds with 66% of the remainder having therapeutic laparotomy, 17% nontherapeutic laparotomy, and 17% negative laparotomy. Therapeutic laparotomy was performed in 53% of blunt injuries after DL. Tension pneumothorax occurred in one patient and one had an iatrogenic small bowel injury. Charges for DL were $3,325 per patient compared with $3,320 for a similar group undergoing negative laparotomy before this protocol. CONCLUSIONS: DL is a safe modality for trauma. With current technology, DL is most efficacious for evaluation of equivocal penetrating wounds. Significant cost savings would be gained by performance under local anesthesia. Development of miniaturized optics, bowel clamps, retractors, and stapling devices will reduce overall costs and permit some therapeutic applications for laparoscopy in trauma management.     

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.     

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.     

The value of laparoscopy in management of abdominal trauma

The role of laparoscopy (LS) in abdominal trauma is controversial. Concerns remain regarding missed injuries and safety. Our objective for this study was to determine the safety and better define the role of LS in abdominal trauma victims. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who sustained abdominal trauma and underwent LS in a level I trauma center. The main outcome measures were age, gender, mechanism of injury (MOI), indication for laparoscopy, presence of intra-abdominal injury (IA), therapeutic laparoscopy (TxLS), need for laparotomy, length of hospital stay (LOS), missed injuries, complications, and deaths. Forty-eight patients underwent LS (62 per cent male; average age, 28 years; MOI, 35 (85%) penetrating, 7 (15%) blunt; mean ISS, 8). At laparoscopy, 58 per cent of patients had no intra-abdominal injury. IA injury was treated with laparotomy in 14 (29%) and TxLS in 6 (13%). One patient had a negative laparotomy (2%). No injuries were missed. No patients required reoperation. There was one complication: a pneumothorax. There were no deaths. LS was most valuable in penetrating trauma, avoiding laparotomy in more than two-thirds of patients with suspected intra-abdominal injury. LS can serve as a useful adjunct for the evaluation of blunt trauma. In a level I trauma center with LS readily available, the procedure is associated with a low rate of complications and missed injury.     

Laparotomy for pelvic fracture

To establish criteria for laparotomy, the records of 224 patients admitted with an acute pelvic fracture were reviewed. Forty-four patients underwent laparotomy; 2 had no intraabdominal injury. The mechanism of injury was blunt trauma in 31 patients and gunshot wound in 13. All four patients who died had blunt trauma. Major or minor pelvic fracture classification did not predict intraabdominal visceral injury, except for bilateral pubic rami fractures, which were commonly associated with bladder rupture.The accuracy of the indications for laparotomy was calculated and criteria were established. Signs of an acute abdominal disorder, the presence of a penetrating wound, abnormal findings on pyelography or cystography, persistent shock, evisceration, and diminished distal pulses, singly or in combination, had a 90 percent accuracy in indicating correctable intraabdominal injury. Peritoneal lavage was less reliable, with a 57 percent accuracy. Additional criteria to be considered are enlarging palpable abdominal hematoma, fracture or dislocation with bony fragments protruding into the pelvis, signs of persistent bleeding, and rectal injury or a large perineal wound.     

腹腔镜诊治胃肠道急腹症146例

目的 探讨腹腔镜在胃肠外科急腹症诊治中的应用价值.方法 回顾分析我院2008年10月至2011年12月问接受腹腔镜探查治疗的146例胃肠外科急腹症患者的临床资料,并将其中的阑尾炎及上消化道穿孔手术与同期开腹手术比较.结果 本组146例患者全部在腹腔镜下明确诊断,其中129例运用腹腔镜治疗成功,17例中转开腹手术,无术中并发症发生,术后未发生腹腔残余感染、肠梗阻、胃肠瘘等,2例发生穿刺孔感染.将其中腹腔镜下阑尾切除及上消化道穿孔修补病例与同期开腹手术比较,结果 表明在术中出血、术后止痛药用量、胃肠道功能恢复时问、切口感染及住院天数等方面具有明显优势.结论 腹腔镜技术在胃肠外科急腹症诊治中安全有效,具有显著的优势.     

Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for trauma: a technique of safe and systematic exploration

Laparoscopy has a limited role in the evaluation of a stable trauma patient. The main concern addressed in the literature is a significant potential for missed visceral injury and a minimal role for therapeutic application. We present a simple technique for systematic abdominal exploration for a suspected intraabdominal injury in a series of three consecutive trauma patients (two penetrating injuries, one blunt) at a level-one trauma center. Three 5-mm ports and a 30-degree laparoscope were used for exploration. Additional ports for retraction were used as needed for therapeutic procedures. All patients underwent complete exploration of the abdominal cavity. Therapeutic procedures consisted of suturing an intraperitoneal bladder rupture, draining a lacerated tail of the pancreas, and cauterizing an actively bleeding penetrating wound to the left lobe and caudate lobe of the liver. All patients experienced prompt and uncomplicated recovery. There were no missed injuries. The presented technique enables a systematic laparoscopic exploration of the abdomen, which follows the same principles as open exploration. The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of a stable trauma patient is likely to increase as more surgeons acquire advanced laparoscopic skills, and as systematic exploration techniques are used.     

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.     

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 as diagnostic-therapeutic method in abdominal traumatism in the pediatric age

The management of blunt abdominal traumatism with a moderate amount of free peritoneal fluid and without solid organ injury as well as the one of minimal penetrating trauma is controversial. We present three cases of blunt abdominal trauma and two of penetrating trauma that underwent diagnostic laparoscopy in our department. We found a small bowel perforation in one of the cases of blunt trauma that was repaired by externalization of the jejuna loop by one of the ports. In the other two cases we found intestinal and mesenteric contusions and free fluid that were treated by peritoneal drainage. One of the cases of penetrating trauma presented omentum evisceration with no other injuries and the second presented a gastric perforation that needed reconversion to laparotomy. In our experience and according to literature, laparoscopy should be taken into account as a diagnostic procedure and sometimes also therapeutic in selected cases of both blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma in pediatric population.     

Diagnostic laparotomy for abdominal trauma. A university hospital experience

Following the experience of World War II, exploratory laparotomy in all patients with penetrating abdominal trauma was deemed mandatory until 1960 when Shaftan reported his experience with selective laparotomy. In 1973, Nance et al. reported on selective observation of abdominal stab wounds. There seems to be little controversy over mandatory laparotomy for abdominal gunshot wounds. Blunt trauma is generally managed expectantly with the adjunctive use of peritoneal lavage, CT scanning, and serial examinations of the abdomen. Despite the selective approach and the use of adjunctive diagnostic methods, exploratory laparotomy continues to be the most accurate method used to diagnose the presence of intra-abdominal injury. In order to examine our experience with diagnostic laparotomy for trauma, both blunt and penetrating, a retrospective study of 494 consecutive patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy over the past 4 years was undertaken. Abdominal stab wounds were explored under local anesthesia, and, if found to penetrate the posterior fascia, laparotomy was accomplished. All patients with abdominal gunshot wounds underwent exploration. Exploratory laparotomy in patients with blunt abdominal trauma was mandated by clinical signs, positive peritoneal lavage, or positive CT scan. All patients with unexplained shock and/or signs of peritoneal irritation underwent urgent laparotomy. In this series of 494 patients, 99 or 20 per cent of the entire group had a negative exploration (30% for stab wounds, 16% for gunshot wounds, and 19% for blunt abdominal trauma). The morbidity for the negative laparotomy group was limited to five patients with postoperative atelectasis. There were no anesthesia complications, iatrogenic intraoperative injuries, or wound infections. There were five deaths but none were laparotomy-related.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Selective nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal solid organ injuries

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of selective nonoperative management in penetrating abdominal solid organ injuries. BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management of blunt abdominal solid organ injuries has become the standard of care. However, routine surgical exploration remains the standard practice for all penetrating solid organ injuries. The present study examines the role of nonoperative management in selected patients with penetrating injuries to abdominal solid organs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, protocol-driven study, which included all penetrating abdominal solid organ (liver, spleen, kidney) injuries admitted to a level I trauma center, over a 20-month period. Patients with hemodynamic instability, peritonitis, or an unevaluable abdomen underwent an immediate laparotomy. Patients who were hemodynamically stable and had no signs of peritonitis were selected for further CT scan evaluation. In the absence of CT scan findings suggestive of hollow viscus injury, the patients were observed with serial clinical examinations, hemoglobin levels, and white cell counts. Patients with left thoracoabdominal injuries underwent elective laparoscopy to rule out diaphragmatic injury. Outcome parameters included survival, complications, need for delayed laparotomy in observed patients, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 152 patients with 185 penetrating solid organ injuries. Gunshot wounds accounted for 70.4% and stab wounds for 29.6% of injuries. Ninety-one patients (59.9%) met the criteria for immediate operation. The remaining 61 (40.1%) patients were selected for CT scan evaluation. Forty-three patients (28.3% of all patients) with 47 solid organ injuries who had no CT scan findings suspicious of hollow viscus injury were selected for clinical observation and additional laparoscopy in 2. Four patients with a "blush" on CT scan underwent angiographic embolization of the liver. Overall, 41 patients (27.0%), including 18 cases with grade III to V injuries, were successfully managed without a laparotomy and without any abdominal complication. Overall, 28.4% of all liver, 14.9% of kidney, and 3.5% of splenic injuries were successfully managed nonoperatively. Patients with isolated solid organ injuries treated nonoperatively had a significantly shorter hospital stay than patients treated operatively, even though the former group had more severe injuries. In 3 patients with failed nonoperative management and delayed laparotomy, there were no complications. CONCLUSIONS: In the appropriate environment, selective nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal solid organ injuries has a high success rate and a low complication rate.     

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.     

Laparoscopy offers diagnosis and treatment in abdominal stab injuries

PURPOSE: To assess the role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of abdominal stab injuries (ASI). METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures due to ASI were included in the study. Hemodynamic instability, injuries to the posterior trunk, concomitant severe cranial injuries, and prior abdominal operations were considered as contraindication for laparoscopy. RESULTS: From January 1997 to March 2006, 88 patients underwent laparoscopic management of ASI. In 45 patients (51.1%), there was no intra-abdominal pathology requiring surgical intervention (nontherapeutic laparoscopy) and 5 patients in this group had no peritoneal penetration (negative laparoscopy). In another 25 patients (28.4%), laparoscopic treatment was performed (therapeutic laparoscopy), including bleeding control in liver, colonic, gastric, and diaphragmatic repairs and intra-abdominal bleeding control. Laparotomy was avoided in a total of 70 (79.5%) patients. In 18 patients (20.5%), laparoscopy was converted to laparotomy. There was no mortality, and except one missed small bowel injury nor perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing laparoscopy. In the laparotomy group, major complications were seen in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is safe and efficient in the management of ASI and should be more frequently considered as a therapeutic tool.     

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