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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Nontherapeutic laparotomies revisited

A wide variability exists in the reported incidents of complications following nontherapeutic laparotomy for trauma. We undertook this study to examine the decision-making leading to and complication rates related to the use of nontherapeutic laparotomy in an era of nonoperative management. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all nontherapeutic laparotomies as defined by the operating surgeon performed between May 1998 and May 2001. A total of 50 patients (6%) underwent nontherapeutic laparotomies predominantly for penetrating injury. The most frequent preoperative reason for nontherapeutic laparotomy was the question of hollow viscous or diaphragmatic injury on preoperative studies. Peritoneal signs on examination and peritoneal penetration on wound exploration were also frequent indications for surgery. Significant complication rates were low at approximately 12 per cent. Total length of stay was 7.3 days and 5 days if patients with significant other associative injuries were excluded. Overall morality was 4 per cent and unrelated to the nontherapeutic laparotomy in all cases. Overall incidence of nontherapeutic laparotomy has decreased with the use of abdominal helical CT and triple-contrast CT to evaluate penetrating injuries. Despite these advances diaphragmatic and hollow viscous injuries remain a concern. Although overall serious complication rates were low the use of nontherapeutic laparotomy adds significantly to length of stay and complications.     

Emergency laparoscopy for abdominal stab wounds

Background: Management strategies for abdominal stab wounds (ASW) in initially asymptomatic patients range from mandatory explorative laparotomy (EL) to conservative approaches with observation alone. Emergency diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) may play a potential role between these two extremes—hence lowering the rate of unnecessary laparotomies and keeping the rate of missed injuries to a minimum. Patients and Methods: At our institution mandatory EL was carried out in every patient with ASW until 1992. In a retrospective study the charts of 43 patients with ASW were reviewed in terms of initial diagnostic procedures, intraabdominal injuries, and course and length of hospital stay. Between 5/1993 and 4/1995 DL was performed in a prospective study in 15 patients with suspected peritoneal penetration (PP) after ASW according to a standardized diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm. Results: In 17 patients (40%) EL showed no PP; 15 (35%) had significant intraabdominal injuries, while 11 patients with PP didn't have lacerations of intraabdominal organs, resulting in an overall rate of nontherapeutic laparotomy of 65%. Mortality was 6% (n= 3), average hospital stay 8 days. Primary DL could exclude PP in 10 out of 15 patients (66%). The remaining five patients (33%) showed PP: In two patients with ASW to the right upper quadrant, intraabdominal injuries could be excluded by DL, and in one patient a low-grade liver injury was treated laparoscopically, thus avoiding laparotomy in a total of 87% (n= 13). In two patients with PP laparoscopy was converted to laparotomy: no pathological finding in one case, splenectomy for spleen laceration in the second patient, resulting in a rate of nontherapeutic laparotomies of 7%. All patients in this series had an uneventful course; average hospital stay was 2.4 days. Conclusions: DL offers an important diagnostic tool in excluding peritoneal penetration in ASW, hence lowering the rate of unnecessary laparotomies. Given experience and skills, laparoscopy may be used therapeutically in selected cases of ASW. Received: 24 February 1997/Accepted: 10 August 1997     

Evaluation of selective treatment of penetrating abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE: In penetrating abdominal trauma, diagnostic imaging and the application of selective clinical management may avoid negative celiotomy and improve outcome. DESIGN: We prospectively observed patients with penetrating abdominal trauma over 15 months and recorded demographics, presentation, imaging, surgical procedure, and outcome. Patients who underwent immediate laparotomy were compared with patients who were observed and/or had a computed tomography (CT) scan. Outcomes of negative versus positive and immediate versus delayed celiotomy were compared. Chi-square and Student t tests were used. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. SETTING: A level 1 trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients who presented with penetrating abdominal injury. RESULTS: In all, 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 32 years) were included (male:female, 91:9; gunshot wound:stab wound, 65:35). Overall, 60 immediate and 10 delayed laparotomies were performed; 30 patients did not undergo surgery. Predictors of immediate celiotomy were hypotension (p = 0.03), anteriorly located entrance wounds (p = 0.0005), and transaxial wounds (p = 0.03). Overall morbidity and mortality was 32% and 2%, respectively. The negative celiotomy rate was 25%. Patients with a positive celiotomy had higher morbidity (p = 0.006) and longer hospital length of stay (p = 0.003) compared with negative celiotomy. A CT scan was employed in 32% of patients, with 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Delayed celiotomy (10%) did not adversely impact morbidity (p = 0.70) and was 100% therapeutic, with no deaths. CONCLUSION: Nonselective immediate celiotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma results in a high rate of unnecessary surgery. Hemodynamically stable patients can safely be observed and/or have contrast CT scans and undergo delayed celiotomy, if indicated. This selective treatment had no adverse effect on patient outcomes and can potentially improve overall outcome.     

Laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma

Summary BACKGROUND: The decision in favor of surgery or nonoperative conservative treatment in abdominal trauma requires a precise diagnosis that is not always possible with imaging techniques. As there is particular danger that an injury to the diaphragm or intestines be overlooked, the indications for exploratory laparotomy should be generous. Owing to this circumstance, however, up to 41% of exploratory laparotomies turn out to be nontherapeutic and could be, or could have been, avoided with laparoscopy. METHODS: A diagnostic laparoscopy with therapeutic option in blunt abdominal trauma should only be attempted in stable patients. Usually three trocars are used and the exploration of the abdomen is systematic, beginning with the right upper quadrant and continuing clockwise. Small lacerations of the intestines and mesentery can be detected and sutured endoscopically, as well as injuries to the diaphragm. Injuries to parenchymal organs are not a primary indication for laparoscopy, but they can be sealed with tissue adhesive and collagen tamponade to prevent further bleeding. RESULTS: Routine use of laparoscopy can achieve a sensitivity of 90–100% in abdominal trauma. This can reduce the number of unnecessary laparotomies and the related morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy can be performed safely and effectively in stable patients with abdominal trauma. The most important advantages are reduction of morbidity, shortening of hospitalization and cost-effectiveness. In the future, new developments in laparoscopy equipment and the introduction of computer technology and robotic devices can be expected to have a decisive influence on the treatment of trauma patients.     

Management of Penetrating Abdominal Trauma in the Conflict Environment: The Role of Computed Tomography Scanning

Background  

Computed tomography (CT) scanning is a vital imaging technique in selecting patients for nonoperative management of civilian penetrating abdominal trauma. This has reduced the rate of nontherapeutic laparotomies and associated complications. Battlefield abdominal injuries conventionally mandate laparotomy, and with the advent of field deployable CT scanners it is unclear whether some ballistic injuries can be managed conservatively.     

Therapeutic laparoscopy in trauma

: To assess the therapeutic potential of emergent laparoscopy in the trauma setting, a retrospective review was performed in a busy urban trauma center. : Between December 1991 and October 1993, 133 hemodynamically stable patients with suspected abdominal injury were evaluated laparoscopically. All laparoscopic procedures were performed in the operating room under general anesthesia. Mechanism of injury was stab wound (58), gunshot wound (57), and blunt trauma (18). No significant injuries were found in 72 patients (54%), and these patients received no further treatment. On the basis of laparoscopic findings, 52 patients underwent formal exploratory laparotomy. Surgical exploration confirmed the presence of significant injuries in 44 of the 52 patients (85%). Therapeutic laparoscopy was performed in 6 patients (5%) for diaphragm repair (4), gastrotomy repair (1), and splenorrhaphy (1). Additionally, 10 patients underwent laparoscopy-guided blood salvage for autotransfusion during laparoscopic evaluation of blunt trauma. Three small-bowel enterotomies were repaired during minilaparotomy. : No significant injuries were missed as a result of our use of laparoscopy in trauma assessment. Complications—trocar enterotomy, trocar laceration of the interior epigastric artery, and transient hypotension—occurred in 3 patients secondary to the use of laparoscopy. : Trauma laparoscopy is a safe method for the evaluation of selected patients with abdominal trauma and can reduce the number of negative and nontherapeutic trauma laparotomies performed. Limited therapeutic intervention is possible in a small number of patients.     

Laparoscopic evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal traumatic injuries

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Management and outcome of abdominal shotgun wounds. Trauma score and the role of exploratory laparotomy.

OBJECTIVE: The management and outcome of 138 abdominal shotgun wounds were examined over a 5-year period. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It has been proposed that exploratory laparotomy may be unnecessary and even overused in a subset of patients with abdominal shotgun wounds. METHODS: Data on shotgun wound patients from October 1987 through March 1992 from a statewide trauma registry were examined. Patients with abdominal shotgun wounds were identified and compared with patients with nonabdominal shotgun wounds. RESULTS: Of 516 shotgun wound patients, 138 (26.7%) had abdominal wounds and 88 (63.8%) had exploratory laparotomies. Abdominal shotgun wounds resulted in significantly longer number of intensive care unit days (4.3 vs. 2.5, p < 0.05), a greater number of blood units transfused (7.8 vs. 2.4, p < 0.05), and a higher mortality (15.9% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.05) when compared with nonabdominal shotgun wounds. When stratified for trauma score, the mortality for abdominal shotgun wounds always was significantly greater than for nonabdominal shotgun wounds. All abdominal shotgun wound patients with trauma scores less than ten died. The negative laparotomy rate for abdominal shotgun wound patients with normal trauma scores was 9.4%. No patient with a negative laparotomy died. CONCLUSION: Abdominal shotgun wounds are a particularly lethal subset of shotgun wounds. Although some abdominal shotgun wound patients can be managed without laparotomy, the morbidity and mortality for these injuries are substantial, even in patients with normal trauma score. Clinical judgment is an excellent predictor of the need for laparotomy.     

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     

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.     

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.     

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.