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.     

Infectious complications following duodenal and/or pancreatic trauma

Patients with pancreatic and/or duodenal trauma often have a high incidence of infectious complications. In this study we attempted to find the most important risk factors for these infections. A retrospective review of the records of 167 patients seen over 7 years (1989 through 1996) at an urban Level I trauma center for injury to the duodenum and/or pancreas was performed. Fifty-nine patients (35%) had isolated injury to the duodenum (13 blunt, 46 penetrating), 81 (49%) had isolated pancreatic trauma (18 blunt, 63 penetrating), and 27 (16%) had combined injuries (two blunt, 25 penetrating). The overall mortality rate was 21 per cent and the infectious morbidity rate was 40 per cent. The majority of patients had primary repair and/or drainage as treatment of their injuries. Patients with pancreatic injuries (alone or combined with a duodenal injury) had a much higher infection rate than duodenal injuries. The patients with duodenal injuries had significantly lower penetrating abdominal trauma indices, number of intra-abdominal organ injuries, and incidence of hypothermia. On multivariate analysis independent factors associated with infections included hypothermia and the presence of a pancreatic injury. Although injuries to the pancreas and duodenum often coexist it is the pancreatic injury that contributes most to the infectious morbidity.     

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.     

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)     

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.     

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.     

Gall bladder injuries as part of the spectrum of civilian abdominal trauma in South Africa

BACKGROUND: Trauma to the gall bladder is rare, but when missed or improperly managed it may be associated with significant morbidity. The aim of the present study was to review the management and outcomes of gall bladder trauma in a trauma centre. METHODS: Forty-three patients with gall bladder injury due to abdominal trauma were reviewed over a 3-year period. Surgical management, associated injuries, morbidity and mortality rates were determined. RESULTS: Among 1242 patients undergoing laparotomy for acute trauma, 43 patients (3.46%) with gall bladder injuries were identified. Forty patients sustained penetrating injuries (37 with gunshot wounds and three with stab wounds), and three patients suffered from blunt trauma. All patients with gall bladder injury underwent abdominal exploration because of associated intra-abdominal injuries. Thirty-six patients were treated with cholecystectomy, four patients underwent primary suture repair of the gall bladder perforation, while three patients with gall bladder injury were treated without any surgical intervention at laparotomy. No complications could be attributed to the gall bladder trauma or surgery. CONCLUSION: Cholecystectomy is the preferred procedure of choice for gall bladder injuries and is associated with no morbidity.     

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.     

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.     

Non-operative management of blunt liver injuries

Over a 10-year period 281 patients with liver injuries following blunt abdominal trauma were seen at Westmead Hospital. A decision to treat the liver injury without an operation was made in 55 (20 per cent) of the 281 patients. Two of these 55 patients required a subsequent laparotomy, one for continued bleeding and one for a bile leak. No patient died from a missed intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal injury or from concealed haemorrhage. These patients were compared with 181 patients with liver injuries who were operated on. The two groups of patients could be distinguished in terms of their clinical status on arrival at the hospital, the magnitude of their injury and the sequelae of the injury. Non-operative management proved a safe alternative to an operation in appropriate patients, but a laparotomy to exclude unsuspected intra-abdominal injuries is associated with little significant morbidity and offers some reassurance in managing patients with multiple injuries.     

Management of penetrating and blunt diaphragmatic injury

The past 5 years' experience with diaphragmatic injuries at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio was reviewed to refine the clinical signs and appropriate treatment. During this period 102 patients were treated. Ninety-three patients incurred penetrating trauma to the diaphragm and nine patients suffered blunt trauma. Chest X-rays were normal in 40 patients, a hemo- and/or pneumothorax was present in 57, herniated abdominal viscera in four, and free air in one. Peritoneal lavage was positive in six of seven patients with blunt diaphragmatic injury, but was falsely negative in two of five patients (20%) with penetrating diaphragmatic injury. Eighty-nine patients (87%) experienced 137 associated injuries (excluding hemo- and/or pneumothorax). Nine patients (8.8%) had an isolated diaphragmatic injury. Four patients (4%) had a diaphragmatic injury associated with only a hemo- and/or pneumothorax. All patients, except for three with injuries recognized late, were operated upon immediately. Two patients had a missed diaphragmatic injury at initial laparotomy. There was one death in the series from a consumption coagulopathy. It was concluded that injuries to the diaphragm should be suspected in all patients with severe blunt torso trauma or with penetrating injuries near the diaphragm. Because of the nonspecificity of X-rays and the 20% false negative rate for peritoneal lavage, we believe that missed injuries and morbidity can be minimized by immediate laparotomy for all patients with abdominal and low thoracic penetrating injuries. Care must be taken not to overlook associated 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 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.     

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.     

Liver lacerations--a marker of severe but sometimes subtle intra-abdominal injuries in adults

Experience with conservative management of solid viscus injuries from abdominal trauma in children has produced the impetus for a similar management in adults. To explore the implications of such a policy, we reviewed the records of 82 patients with hepatic injuries noted at laparotomy. Indications for laparotomy were positive findings on diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) or CT scan, or a history of penetrating trauma. The liver injuries were graded according to severity: grade I, 19 patients; grade II, 20 patients (low severity = LS); grade III, 14 patients; grade IV, 6 patients (high severity = HS). Twenty-three injuries were not classified by the operating surgeon. Of the 53 patients with blunt hepatic trauma, 23 (43%) had concomitant injuries that required operative intervention. Twenty-nine patients had penetrating liver injuries. Fourteen (48%) had associated injuries requiring intervention. Patients most likely to have nonoperative management, those with grade I and grade II liver injuries (LS), comprised 48 of the total. In this subgroup there were 26 (54.2%) associated injuries requiring operative intervention. Shock could not be used as a factor to differentiate patients not requiring operative intervention. Nineteen of the LS patients requiring operative intervention secondary to associated injury were never in shock. In adult trauma victims positive DPL findings secondary to minor hepatic injuries that might not require operative intervention serve as a marker for associated injuries that do require operation. The risk of nonoperative management of hepatic injuries based upon radiologic diagnosis is not the result of complications from the hepatic injury.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

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.     

Gallbladder and extrahepatic biliary duct injury following abdominal trauma.

Extrahepatic biliary tract and gallbladder injuries are rare, but many occur after both blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. During a 5-year period, 24 patients requiring laparotomy for abdominal trauma were found to have an extrahepatic biliary tract injury, representing 13 per cent of all patients admitted with hepatic trauma during the same period. The majority of patients had injury to the gallbladder; only one case of common bile duct injury was identified. Of the patients, 50 per cent had an associated hepatic injury; 17 per cent had important pancreatic trauma. Isolated gallbladder injury occurred in only 8 per cent of patients. The overall mortality associated with gallbladder trauma was 16 per cent. This uncommon injury usually results from severe trauma and is associated with a high incidence of other major visceral injuries.     

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.