Diagnostic laparoscopy decreases the rate of unnecessary laparotomies and reduces hospital costs in trauma patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of laparoscopy for the treatment of various surgical diseases has been well described, and recently, it has gained popularity in the evaluation of abdominal trauma patients. The value of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in avoiding unnecessary laparotomies and its effects on hospital costs was evaluated in a prospective clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a 48-month period, 99 hemodynamically stable abdominal trauma patients (28 blunt and 71 penetrating injuries) among 428 patients admitted with abdominal trauma in whom the decision for surgical exploration was made were accepted for the study and underwent DL prior to laparotomy. RESULTS: The DL was negative in 60.7% of the patients with blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) and in 62.0% of the patients with penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT). Laparoscopy-positive patients (Group 1) underwent immediate laparotomy, whereas on DL-negative patients (Group 2), no laparotomies were performed. Hospitalization times and hospital costs of the two groups were recorded and compared. The difference between the hospitalization times of Group 1 and Group 2 was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The use of DL reduced the rate of unnecessary laparotomies from 60.7% to 0 in BAT and from 78.9% to 16.9% in PAT. The mean hospitalization time was 2.75 +/- 1.20 days in patients with negative DL, whereas it was 7.4 +/- 2.20 days and 5.2 +/- 1.42 days in DL-positive patients undergoing a therapeutic and nontherapeutic laparotomy, respectively. When the hospital costs of the Group 1 patients were compared with those of Group 2 patients, there was a 4.07-fold increase in patients undergoing therapeutic laparotomy and a 1.78-fold increase in patients undergoing nontherapeutic laparotomy. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic laparoscopy might be used in selected patients to exclude significant intra-abdominal injuries.     

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.     

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 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.     

The importance of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma

The importance of laparoscopy in the management of blunt abdominal trauma should be evaluated. Therefore we retrospectively analysed all patients with blunt abdominal trauma treated in the Department of Surgery at the Carl-Thiem-Hospital Cottbus between 1998 and 2000. Within this period a total number of 53 patients with blunt abdominal trauma underwent operative treatment, 20 (37.7 %) of them had primary laparoscopy. Of the 11 cases where laparoscopic operation could be completed without conversion to exploratory laparotomy, 8 patients had intra-abdominal injuries and underwent sufficient laparoscopic treatment. The percentage of so called "negative" exploratory laparotomies within this study was 13.2 %. Our analysis suggests that laparoscopy should become firmly established in the diagnostic management and, if indicated, in the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma as well.     

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。     

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.     

A multi faceted quality improvement programme results in improved outcomes for the selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal trauma in a developing world trauma centre

Introduction

The selective non-operative management (SNOM) of penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) is well established in our environment. As a quality-improvement initiative, we aimed to re-evaluate patient outcomes with PAT. This follows the application of new imaging and diagnostic modalities using protocolised management algorithms.

Methodology

A prospectively maintained digital registry was retrospectively interrogated and all patients with PAT treated by our service from January 2012 to March 2013 were included in this study.

Results

A total of 325 patients sustained PAT during the fourteen-month study period. This included 238 SWs, 80 GSWs and 7 impalement injuries. 11 patients had eviscerated bowel, and 12 had eviscerated omentum. A total of 123 patients (38%) were selected for a trial of SNOM. This included 103 SWs, 15 GSWs and 5 impalement injuries. Emergency laparotomy was performed on 182 patients (115 SWs, 65 GSWs and 2 impalement injuries) and 21 patients with left sided thoraco-abdominal SWs underwent definitive diagnostic laparoscopy (DL). SNOM was successful in 122 cases (99%) and unsuccessful in one case (1%). In the laparotomy group 161 (88%) patients underwent a therapeutic procedure, in 12 cases (7%) the laparotomy was non-therapeutic and in 9 cases (5%) the laparotomy was negative. In the laparoscopy group (24), two patients required conversion for colonic injuries and one for equipment failure. Seven (33.3%) laparoscopies were therapeutic with the identification and intra-corporeal repair of seven left hemi-diaphragm injuries.

Conclusion

We have improved our results with the SNOM of PAT and have also managed to safely and successfully extend the role of SNOM to abdominal GSWs. We have selectively adopted newer modalities such as laparoscopy to assess stable patients with left thoraco-abdominal SWs and abdominal CT scan for the SNOM of abdominal GSWs.     

Laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma

Summary BACKGROUND: Penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) poses a significant challenge to trauma surgeons. There is no doubt that persistent hemodynamic instability or signs of peritoneal irritation warrant immediate laparotomy. If the patient is hemodynamically stable and has equivocal abdominal examination findings, diagnosis may be obtained by laparoscopy. METHODS: The goal of this article is to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the management of PAT. RESULTS: Patients with penetrating trauma to the thoracoabdominal and anterior abdominal wall are good candidates for laparoscopic evaluation. The peritoneal cavity and its contents, including the retroperitoneal space, can be thoroughly examined easily and safely. The main benefits of laparoscopy include the reduction of nontherapeutic laparotomies, identification of mostly intra-abdominal injury, and provision of potential therapy for some cases. Diagnostic laparoscopy has a high overall diagnostic accuracy, reduced morbidity, and shortened hospital stay and is also cost-effective. While laparoscopy has some limitations in the diagnosis of hollow viscus injury, it can detect and repair diaphragmatic injuries accurately and exclude the risk of nontherapeutic laparotomy due to a nonbleeding injury of the solid organs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of laparoscopy as a diagnostic or therapeutic method in patients with PAT is reserved only for hemodynamically stable patients and uncertain findings of peritonitis. Laparoscopy is an efficient and effective diagnostic tool when used by a well-trained surgeon. With experience, an increasing number of surgeons are using laparoscopy as an additional diagnostic tool for PAT in stable patients. With more experience and skills, laparoscopy may be used more therapeutically in selected patients. Minimally invasive surgery has already established itself as a useful tool in the management of PAT. The future seems to be promising for this field of surgery by innovative developments in computer technology and robotic systems.     

The place of laparoscopy in the management of the patients with penetrating abdominal trauma

INTRODUCTION: In patients with an abdominal knife wound, the main problem is to determine whether the abdominal trauma is penetrating. The aim of this work is to study the safety of the laparoscopic approach in the management of abdominal knife trauma. MATERIALS: A laparoscopy was performing in sixty patients. Patients were dispatched in four categories according to the laparoscopic findings. A laparotomy was performed after laparoscopy in case of peritoneal tear. RESULTS: Unnecessary laparotomy was avoided in 58% of the patients. The follow-up was favourable with nil mortality and a low morbidity (3%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic management of abdominal wound knife trauma is a reliable approach to identify a peritoneum tear. This specific situation requires a laparotomy to look for an intra abdominal tear.     

腹腔镜技术在诊治腹部穿透伤中的应用评价

目的:本研究通过分析我院应用腹腔镜技术诊断和治疗腹部穿透伤病人的具体资料,探讨腹腔镜技术在诊治腹部穿透伤中的应用价值。方法:2007年1月至2010年12月,我院收治的腹部穿透伤142例病人中,39例采用非手术治疗,86例采用腹腔镜探查手术,17例采用开腹探查手术。结果:在86例采用腹腔镜探查手术的病例中,51例在腹腔镜下完成止血、修补等治疗;19例因出血迅猛、腹腔污染严重及病变难以处理而中转开腹手术;16例探查阴性。结论:腹腔镜技术在腹部穿透伤的处理中兼具诊断和治疗的作用,避免了一些不必要的开腹手术,从而取代了很多开腹手术;有创伤小,恢复快等优势,有一定的应用价值。     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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     

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 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.     

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.     

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.