腹腔镜在腹部外伤中的应用体会

目的:分析腹腔镜诊断与治疗腹部外伤的临床价值。方法:2002年7月~2006年7月,我院对具有剖腹探查指征的68例腹部外伤患者使用腹腔镜诊断,并根据镜检结果决定镜下治疗或中转开腹手术。结果:51例腹部外伤于镜下作出正确诊断,19例于镜下手术,18例可免治疗性处理;31例中转开腹手术,其中9例为腹腔镜辅助开腹或手助腹腔镜手术,术后并发症5例,全组均治愈出院。结论:腹腔镜诊治腹部外伤具有创伤小、安全可靠、诊断率高,并有效降低阴性剖腹探查率等优点,适用于大部分腹部外伤的病例。     

腹腔镜诊治腹部外伤76例体会

目的探讨腹腔镜在腹部外伤中诊断与治疗的价值。方法自2000年8月至2008年10月,对具有剖腹探查指征的76例腹部外伤病人应用腹腔镜技术进行探查、诊断,并根据腹腔镜探查结果决定和实施腹腔镜下治疗或中转开腹手术。结果经腹腔镜探查76例,全部明确诊断,59例于镜下行治疗性手术,6例无需手术处理,11例中转开腹手术,其中5例为腹腔镜辅助手术。术后无并发症及死亡病例,全组均治愈出院。结论腹腔镜技术应用于腹部外伤具有诊断准确率高、创伤小、安全可靠,并有效降低阴性剖腹探查率等优点,适用于大部分腹部外伤的病例。     

腹腔镜在腹部外伤中的应用58例体会

目的探讨腹腔镜手术在腹部外伤中的诊断及治疗价值。方法回顾性分析2002年1月至2008年10月我院收治的58例血流动力学稳定的腹部外伤病人的临床资料。腹部外伤后使用腹腔镜探查、诊断,并根据病变情况做相应治疗处理。结果腹腔镜手术明确诊断58例,完全腹腔镜手术45例（其中探查阴性3例）,手辅助腹腔镜手术3例,中转开腹手术10例。术后伤口感染1例,膈下脓肿1例,无损伤、漏诊,无手术死亡。结论腹腔镜手术在诊治血流动力学稳定的腹部外伤时是一种安全、可行、有效的方法,并且可以减轻腹部闭合性损伤行剖腹探查阴性病人的创伤。但也存在一定的局限性,必要时配合手辅助腹腔镜或及时中转开腹手术能取得更好的治疗效果。     

腹腔镜诊断治疗腹部刺伤90例报告

目的：探讨腹腔镜诊断及治疗腹部刀刺伤的价值。方法：腹部刀剌伤90例患者术前探查示与腹腔相通,应用腹腔镜完成诊断及治疗。结果：90例患者均在腹腔镜下明确诊断。17例无腹腔内脏损伤,52例于腹腔镜下完成治疗,21例中转开腹。结论：诊断明确的腹部刀刺伤选用腹腔镜探查,多可同时完成治疗,只少部分病例需开腹手术。     

腹腔镜在诊断不明确的急腹症和腹部外伤诊治中的应用

目的 探讨和分析腹腔镜诊断和治疗急腹症及腹部外伤的价值.方法 对具有开腹探查指征的61例不明确诊断的急腹症及腹部外伤患者进行腹腔镜探查,根据探查情况决定具体术式.结果 61例均行腹腔镜探查,60例明确诊断,50例避免开腹手术,手术并发症3例,无死亡病例.结论 腹腔镜技术不仅对外科急腹症和腹部外伤能明确诊断,避免不必要的开腹探查,同时又能进行腹腔镜下手术治疗,具有良好的临床应用价值.     

腹腔镜在闭合性腹部外伤诊治中的应用

目的探讨腹腔镜在闭合性腹部外伤诊治中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析我院2004年1月-2009年6月应用腹腔镜探查处理闭合性腹部外伤18例的临床资料。结果18例全部在腹腔镜下明确诊断,其中肝破裂出血5例,脾破裂出血3例,小肠破裂7例,大网膜破裂出血3例;腹腔镜下完成手术14例,4例行腹腔镜探查后中转开腹手术。手术时间60-182 min,平均126 min。住院时间8-20 d,平均12 d。随访18例,其中〈1年7例,1-3年8例,4-5年3例,无腹痛、粘连性肠梗阻等并发症。结论腹腔镜对闭合性腹部外伤能尽早明确诊断,集诊断和治疗为一体。     

腹腔镜在腹部开放性损伤中的应用体会

目的总结腹腔镜外科技术应用在腹部开放性损伤的诊断和治疗的经验。方法应用腹腔镜外科技术对10例腹部刀刺伤的诊断和治疗进行回顾性分析。结果10例病人术前检查均为腹壁穿透伤,腹腔镜检查结果有胃、小肠裂伤、穿孔。腹腔镜检查结果有胃、小肠裂伤、穿孔,肠系膜小血管裂伤,肋间动脉破裂,脾破裂等。2例经腹腔镜探查无阳性发现．7例在腹腔镜下手术治疗．中转开腹1例。均无并发症治愈出院。结论应用于现代腹腔镜技术对腹部开放性损伤进行诊断、治疗具有避免阴性剖腹探查。尽早明确诊断。大部分病人可通过腹腔镜手术治愈从而减少创伤的优点,值得临床推广应用。     

腹腔镜在腹部外伤治疗中的应用

目的:分析应用腹腔镜经原创口诊断与治疗腹部外伤的临床价值。方法:2003年7月至2006年12月,对具有剖腹探查指征的14例腹部外伤患者使用腹腔镜经原创口诊断,并根据镜检结果决定镜下治疗或中转开腹手术。结果:14例腹部外伤患者均于镜下作出正确诊断,5例镜下手术,2例可免治疗性处理;7例中转开腹手术,其中5例于腹腔镜辅助下手术,全组均治愈出院。结论:腹腔镜诊治腹部外伤具有创伤小、安全可靠、诊断率高,并有效降低阴性剖腹探查率等优点,适用于大部分腹部外伤的病例。     

腹腔镜在腹部闭合性损伤中的应用价值

目的：探讨腹腔镜在腹部闭合性损伤中的应用价值。方法：回顾性分析38例患者应用腹腔镜诊断与治疗腹部闭合性外伤的效果。结果：经腹腔镜探查38例全部明确诊断。36例同时进行治疗,2例无需手术处理,避免了不必要的开腹手术,中转开腹10例,无并发症和死亡病例。结论：腹腔镜诊治腹部外伤具有创伤小、安全可靠、诊断率高等优点,并有效降低阴性剖腹探查率,适用于大部分腹部外伤的病例。     

腹部刀刺伤158例诊治分析

目的 探讨腹部刀刺伤的诊断及治疗.方法 回顾性分析2008年1月至2011年4月收治的158例腹部刀刺伤伤员的临床资料,对其诊断及治疗方式进行总结.结果 治愈157例,死亡1例.其中,腹壁穿透伤113例,行剖腹探查术86例,行腹腔镜下探查术13例,14例小创口先行清创后保守治疗,期间出现腹膜炎表现立即中转开腹2例.结论...     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The contribution of laparoscopy in evaluation of penetrating abdominal wounds

BACKGROUND: Penetrating abdominal wounds are traditionally explored by laparotomy. We investigated prospectively the role of laparoscopy within a defined protocol for management of penetrating abdominal wounds to determine its safety and advantages over traditional operative management. STUDY DESIGN: The study inclusion criteria were: stab and gun shot abdominal wounds, including junction zone injuries; stable vital signs; and absence of contraindications for laparoscopy. Diagnostic end points included detection of peritoneum or diaphragm violation, visceral injuries, and other indications for laparotomy. Systematic examination was undertaken using a multiport technique whenever the peritoneum or diaphragm had been violated. All repairs were done by open operation. RESULTS: A total of 40.6% of patients with penetrating trauma fulfilled study criteria (52 patients). Of these, 33% had no peritoneal penetration; 29% had no visceral injuries despite violation of peritoneum or diaphragm; 38% had visceral injuries, of which 40% (mainly liver and omentum) required no intervention. Twelve patients (23% of total) had open repairs. No missed injuries or death occurred in the study. Overall, 77% of penetrating injuries with stable vital signs avoided exploratory laparotomy. Compared with National Trauma Data Bank information for patients with the same Injury Severity Scores, hospitalization was reduced by more than 55% for the entire series. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy for penetrating abdominal injuries in a defined set of conditions was safe and accurate, effectively eliminating nontherapeutic laparotomy and shortening hospitalization.     

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 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.     

The role of laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has become increasingly utilized in the trauma setting. When properly applied, it offers several advantages, including reduced morbidity, lower rates of negative laparotomy, and shortened length of hospital stay. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the management of trauma patients with penetrating abdominal injuries. METHODS: We conducted a 3-year retrospective chart review of 4541 trauma patients admitted to our urban Level II trauma center. Penetrating abdominal injuries accounted for 209 of these admissions. Patients were divided into 3 treatment groups based on the characteristics of their abdominal injuries. Management was either observation, immediate laparotomy, or screening laparoscopy. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were observed in the Emergency Department based on their initial physical examination and radiologic studies. After Emergency Department evaluation, 154 patients underwent immediate laparotomy. In this group, 119 therapeutic laparotomies, 11 nontherapeutic laparotomies, and 24 negative laparotomies were performed. A review of the negative laparotomies revealed that possibly 8 of 10 gun shot wounds and all 14 stab wounds could have been done laparoscopically. Twenty-two patients underwent laparoscopic evaluation, 9 of which were converted to open procedures. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgical techniques are particularly helpful as a screening tool for anterior abdominal wall wounds and lower chest injuries to rule out peritoneal penetration. Increased use of laparoscopy in select patients with penetrating abdominal trauma will decrease the rate of negative and nontherapeutic laparotomies, thus lowering morbidity and decreasing length of hospitalization. As technology and expertise among surgeons continues to improve, more therapeutic intervention may be done laparoscopically in the future.     

The diagnosis and treatment of wounds to the lumbar area

An analysis of results of treatment of 228 patients with wounds of the lumbar region has shown that in 66.2% of cases they were not penetrating, in 33.8% they were penetrating. In 42 patients there were injuries of internal organs and of the vessels of the abdominal cavity and retroperitoneal space. The casualties must be examined under conditions of the emergency operating room and which in addition to thorough revision of the wound must include subsidiary methods of examination: USI, survey radiography of the thoracic and abdominal cavities and diagnostic survey laparoscopy, if necessary.     

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.     

The accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy in trauma patients: a prospective, controlled study

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies advocate the use of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) for abdominal trauma, but none have documented its ability to diagnose specific injuries. This study tests the hypothesis that DL can accurately identify all significant intra-abdominal injuries in trauma patients. METHODS: Of trauma patients requiring laparotomy for presumed injuries, 47 underwent DL followed by laparotomy. Injuries noted at laparoscopy were compared with those found at laparotomy. RESULTS: Of these, 14 patients had no significant injuries necessitating operative intervention noted at laparoscopy and celiotomy. The remaining 33 patients harbored 93 significant injuries at laparotomy, of which only 57.0% were found by DL. DL possessed poor sensitivity (<50%) for injuries to hollow viscera. Despite DL's poor performance in finding specific injuries, it possessed excellent sensitivity (96.2%), and specificity (100%) for determining the need for therapeutic celiotomy. CONCLUSIONS: DL offers no clear advantage over diagnostic peritoneal lavage and computed tomography in blunt trauma. Its utility lies in assessment of the need for laparotomy in patients with penetrating wounds. Currently, DL cannot consistently identify all abdominal injuries, disqualifying it as a therapeutic tool in abdominal trauma.