Abdominal trauma

Summary While a great part of the Anglo-American medical literature addresses the topic of penetrating trauma the German spreaking countries rather publish on blunt abdominal injury. The presented paper discusses the strategic principles of acute clinical management of abdominal trauma on the combined basis of own research results and a comprehensive review of the literature. Blunt abdominal injuries in most cases from a part in the pattern of multiple trauma. The early, first-hours mortality is most often caused by severe traumatic brain injury or abdominal trauma with massive hemorrhage. The prehospital management of penetrating injuries is characterized rather by the concept of ’load and go', whereas the on-scene stabilization of the patient with blunt abdominal injury should precede transport to the adequate hospital. On arrival in the accident and emergency room an immediate blood transfusion is recommended for hemodynamically unstable patients. If then a stabilization is not achieved, an emergency laparotomy should follow. Abdominal stab injuries should be explored by laparoscopy if an intraperitoneal lesion is suspected. If then the possibility of an intestinal lesion is present a laparotomy should be performed directly thereafter. Firearm injuries require open revision in almost all cases. The standard diagnostic technique in blunt abdominal trauma is sonography, assisted by computed tomography and, if indicated, angiography in hemodynamically stable patients. Isolated abdominal injuries without hemodynamic or coagulation disorders allow conservative treatment in the intensive care setting. In severe multiple trauma as well as in manifest shock even the smallest fluid detection should lead to laparotomy. The surgical treatment of splenic rupture is still a matter of discussion. Splenectomy is indicated in patients with severe concomitating injuries or shock whereas in the remainder of cases the total or partial preservation of the spleen should be pursued. Hepatic injuries offer a broad spectrum of operative interventions, ranging from superficial hemostatic measures over compression techniques like ’packing' and ’mesh-wrapping' to atypical and anatomical resections and to liver transplantation in exceptional cases. Lesions of tubular organs and the pancreas pose especially difficult diagnostical problems but regularly allow a rather easy operative treatment.      

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)     

肝外伤的诊治体会(附55例报告)

目的 总结肝外伤的诊断和治疗经验.方法 回顾55例肝外伤患者的临床资料.结果 55例肝外伤中Ⅰ～Ⅱ级18例,Ⅲ级15例,Ⅳ级17例,Ⅴ级5例;采用非手术治疗31例,均痊愈;于术治疗24例,痊愈22例,自动出院2例.结论 肝外伤诊断以伞腹B超和腹腔穿刺为首选检杏,血液动力学稳定时可行腹部CT平扫或加增强扫描对判断是否行于术治疗彳丁帮助.目前,肝外伤的治疗主要考虑两个方面:血液动力学的稳定性和外伤的性质:钝挫伤或贳通伤;在判断是否行保守治疗时,血液动力学稳定性比肝外伤分级相对更重要.对血液动力学稳定的Ⅰ级、Ⅱ级和部分Ⅲ级钝性肝外伤可存严密连续临测下行非于术治疗;根据m液动力学变化和伤情判断及时中转于术;对血液动力学不稳定的部分Ⅲ级、Ⅳ级和Ⅴ级严重肝外伤以下术治疗为宜.早期复苏、有效止血、充分引流和防治术后并发症足降低严重肝外伤病死率的关键.     

Computed Tomography, Angiography, and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Nonoperative Management of Hepatic and Splenic Trauma

There is a marked trend toward nonoperative management of abdominal trauma. This has been possible thanks to the advances in imaging and interventional techniques. In this work we review in which way computed tomography (CT) abdominal scans, angiography, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can guide the nonoperative management of hepatic and splenic trauma. The CT abdominal scan with intravenous contrast is the "departure imaging" of choice for the nonoperative management of hepatic and splenic trauma in the hemodynamically stable patient. It is the most accurate test for detecting, defining, and characterizing these injuries, the associated hemoperitoneum, and other abdominal abnormalities (the hollow viscus injuries missed on the CT scan were detected by clinical parameters and had no negative consequences in the outcome). It has an accuracy of more than 95% for these injuries, but CT grading alone cannot decide which patient can be treated conservatively and which patient requires surgery. Its usefulness for follow-up seems challenging. Angiography can be therapeutic, thereby avoiding surgery (some report that angiography can be performed even in patients with active bleeding as damage control); if vessel injury, active bleeding or hemobilia are suspected on the basis of a CT scan in a stable patient, angiography should be carried out. ERCP should be performed in patients with suspected injury to the biliary tree, even with normal iminodiacetic acid radionuclide scanning (HIDA) if symptoms persist. A biliary stent can be placed. Indications for angiography and ERCP remain unclear.     

Celiac dissection after blunt abdominal trauma complicated by acute hepatic failure: case report and review of literature

Injuries of the abdominal visceral vessels are uncommon but devastating entities resulting in extremely high rates of mortality. The most common cause of abdominal vascular injuries is penetrating trauma, accounting for 90% to 95% of these injuries. In contrast, blunt trauma accounts for 5% to 10% of all abdominal vascular lesions. Although traumatic injury to the celiac artery is among the rarest of all vascular injuries, mortality can be as high as 75%. We report a 66-year-old patient who sustained multiple injuries in a motor vehicle crash. The initial whole-body computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a combination of severe brain injury and bilateral thoracic lesions. On day 6 after the accident, the patient's clinical situation deteriorated rapidly. At this time, the abdominal arterial CT scan showed a dissection of the celiac artery. Therapeutic anticoagulation was not feasible because of the intracranial hemorrhage. Also the patient's clinical situation worsened so rapidly that interventional therapy, including surgical and endovascular treatment, could not be performed. Finally, the patient died of fulminant hepatic failure, therefore not surviving a potentially treatable injury. The diagnosis of celiac artery dissection in this patient was significantly delayed because the initial trauma CT protocol did not include an arterial phase of the abdominal vessels.     

Blunt abdominal injury: serum ALT-A marker of liver injury and a guide to assessment of its severity

BACKGROUND: Elevated serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as a marker for diagnosis, and assessment of severity in patients with blunt hepatic injuries are hitherto un-described or casually mentioned in literature. METHODS: Prospective observational study of all patients admitted with blunt abdominal trauma accrued between May 2002 and December 2003. Upon admission, vital parameters were recorded and blood samples were drawn for haemogram and serum ALT (SGPT) levels. Patients were further evaluated with USG, CT scan or underwent a laparotomy. RESULTS: Of the 122 patients with blunt abdominal injury, 32 had raised ALT, among these 31 had liver injury. No patient with a normal ALT had hepatic injury. Five patients with a significantly raised ALT and negative USG had liver injury. Patients with modestly raised ALT, mostly resolved on non-operative treatment, whereas, patients with more marked rise had more serious hepatic injuries, more complications, greater transfusion requirement, and higher death rates. CONCLUSION: This observational cohort study strongly suggests that raised serum ALT is a sensitive diagnostic marker for blunt liver injury and its levels may assist with prognosis and guide management.     

Comparison of Isolated and Concomitant Liver Injuries: is Hepatic Trauma Entirely Responsible for the Outcome ?

Objective: This study was undertaken to examine both isolated and concomitant liver injuries to clarify the role of liver trauma on outcome.

Patients and methods: This retrospective study was a review of all abdominal trauma patients who presented with liver injuries, with or without concomitant injury at Ege University School of Medicine over a 3-year period. Presentation, injury grade, management, and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with isolated hepatic injury (Group A) were compared with patients who had concomitant hepatic injury (liver and spleen/small bowel) (Group B). Significance was set at 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Of 368 patients, 80 (21%) presented with liver injury. Of these, the aetiology was as follows: 53 (66.2%) blunt injury, 19 (23%) penetrating injury, and 8 (10%) gun shot trauma. There were 38 patients in Group A and 42 in Group B. Of these 42 patients, 19 were diagnosed with serious types of injury; eight thoracic, three open long bone fracture, one intra-cardiac, one intracranial. Six additional patients were observed with injuries to large abdominal vessels. Eleven patients (28.9%) with isolated hepatic injury were managed non-operatively. Mortality, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and transfusion requirements were significantly higher in Group B. Only the number of transfused blood units and the grade of liver injury were found to be effective on outcome whereas stepwise regression analysis revealed that injury type (penetrating) and blood transfusion were predictive for mortality.

Conclusion: This study highlighted that although isolated liver injury results in good outcome with non-operative management, concomitant injuries to the liver lead to a higher failure and mortality rate. However, liver injury itself is rarely responsible for death.     

Selection of Nonoperative Management Candidates

The liver and spleen are the most commonly injured intraabdominal organs and comprise most of the injuries to the solid viscera during blunt abdominal injury. The contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan has emerged as an accurate, safe diagnostic tool for blunt torso trauma, making nonoperative management of even severe injury to the liver and spleen possible. This review concentrates on the trends, patient selection criteria, and some of the risks of nonoperative management of hemodynamically stable patients with blunt liver and spleen injury.     

Liver trauma in children.

A review of our experience with urban children who sustained blunt abdominal trauma revealed that liver trauma occurred in one-third of all children. The cause of trauma, predominantly blunt in nature, led to a multitude of associated injuries which not only caused visceral and skeletal injury endangering the patient, but, more apparent even though less significant injuries delayed diagnosis and therapy of the underlying sever liver injury. Awareness of the possibility of liver injury in children with blunt abdominal trauma, prompt operative intervention wil injuries should significantly increase the salvage of these pediatric trauma victims.     

Modified Technique of Mesh Hepatorrhaphy for Management of Juxtahepatic Venous Injury in a Case of Blunt Liver Trauma: A Case Report

The liver is the most frequently injured organ in cases of blunt abdominal trauma. Injuries to the caudate lobe are rarely isolated and usually associated with retrohepatic caval injury or hepatic vein injury. The management of the associated vascular injuries is usually difficult owing to the short courses of the hepatic veins and the difficulty in obtaining proximal and distal control of the suprarenal and suprahepatic inferior vena cava – hence the frequency of perihepatic packing in the management of caudate lobe and hepatic venous injuries. We present here a rare case of the failure of perihepatic packing to effectively control hemorrhage from blunt injury to the caudate lobe and retrohepatic vena cava. A case of blunt abdominal trauma with injury to the caudate lobe and retrohepatic venous injury was initially managed with perihepatic packing. The patient developed hemorrhage 48 h after pack removal, which was then successfully managed with mesh hepatorrhaphy of the caudate lobe.     

Intra-arterial thrombolysis in the carotid territory

Background: In patients who sustain abdominal trauma the liver is the most frequently injured organ. Although treatment for haemodynamically unstable patients remains urgent surgery, there has been a shift of management in haemodynamacally stable patients towards non-operative management. We performed an outcome assessment of traumatic hepatic injury.

Methods: A retrospective study was performed to assess incidence, mechanisms, management and outcome of traumatic liver injury in the region of ’s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands, in the period 1999–2007.

Results: A total of 47 patients were identified. Thirty-six patients had blunt hepatic trauma, eleven sustained penetrating hepatic injury. In 67% (n = 24) of the blunt hepatic trauma patients the initial intention was to treat non-operatively. Yet, two patients underwent explorative laparotomy after one and two days. In the penetrating liver trauma patients, 91% (n = 10) underwent urgent surgery. In total, 31 of 47 patients were treated conservatively.

Conclusion: Blunt hepatic trauma is the most common cause of hepatic trauma. Most patients sustaining hepatic trauma can be managed conservatively at a dedicated ICU and/or surgical trauma ward.     

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.     

Traumatic hepatic duct injury: New approach to surgical management

Blunt traumatic injury to the biliary tract is rare, and its management is one of the most difficult and challenging problems confronting surgeons. If disruption occurs in the hepatic ducts, occult ductal injury may even go unnoticed. A high index of suspicion is the single most important factor leading to the identification and successful management of these injuries. A patient with massive upper abdominal injuries secondary to blunt trauma is reported on. Intraoperative cholangiography demonstrated bilateral hepatic duct transection. The injury was successfully managed by Roux-en-Y hepatoportal enterostomy, an approach that has not been previously reported. Primary repair or hepatic cholangiojejunostomy is the treatment of choice for hepatic duct injuries. Hepatoportal enterostomy, however, offers a satisfactory alternative in treatment when the patient is unstable or when primary repair is not possible. The literature is reviewed and the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of nonpenetrating injuries to the biliary tract are discussed.     

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.     

Nonsurgical management of solid abdominal organ injury in patients over 55 years of age

Age greater than 55 is often stated to be a contraindication to nonoperative management of intraperitoneal solid organ injury, based upon failures in early experiences of nonoperative therapy. Refinements in the criteria for nonoperative management of hepatic and splenic injuries have yielded improved success rates compared with those in initial reports, raising questions as to the validity of an age-related contraindication. A retrospective chart review of patients more than 55 years of age sustaining blunt hepatic and/or splenic injury at two urban Level I trauma centers was performed. Patients were stratified into three groups in which selection criteria could not consistently be determined: those managed nonoperatively, those managed operatively, and those who died within 24 hours. The purpose of this review is to identify whether age is a determinant for nonoperative management of abdominal solid organ injury. Eighty-eight patients were identified (mean age, 68.7 +/- 9.8), 17 of whom died in the emergency department or after operative intervention. Of the remaining 71 patients, 37 were originally managed nonoperatively (mean age 69.9 +/- 9.1, mean Injury Severity Score 19.9), 24 sustained hepatic injuries (grades I-IV), 12 sustained splenic injuries (grades I-III), and one patient sustained both organ injuries. Three patients with multisystem trauma died from complications unrelated to their solid organ injury (one brain death, one septic death, and one respiratory arrest). A single patient, with a grade I liver injury, required delayed exploration (for a persistent, unexplained metabolic acidosis) and underwent a nontherapeutic celiotomy. All but one of the 37 patients were successfully treated nonoperatively, for a 97 per cent success rate. We conclude that hemodynamically stable patients more than 55 years of age sustaining intra-abdominal injury can be observed safely. Age alone should no longer be considered an exclusion criterion for nonoperative management of intra-abdominal solid organ injury.     

Diagnostic modalities in abdominal trauma. Peritoneal lavage, ultrasonography, computed tomography scanning, and arteriography

Numerous algorithms encompassing the diagnostic studies described above have been published in recent years. For practical purposes, diagnostic peritoneal lavage and CT scanning are the diagnostic studies most commonly used in patients without obvious indications for celiotomy after blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma. Diagnostic peritoneal lavage is invasive, rapidly performed, cheap, and accurate and has a primary role in documenting intra-abdominal bleeding or contamination in hypotensive patients with blunt trauma or selected stable patients with penetrating stab wounds. It misses small and large injuries to the diaphragm and cannot rule out injury to retroperitoneal structures. Computed tomography is noninvasive, time consuming to perform, expensive, and accurate and has a primary role in defining the location and magnitude of intra-abdominal injuries in stable patients with blunt trauma or with penetrating trauma to the flank or back. In many hospitals, it misses gastrointestinal perforations or ruptures. Both studies may be needed in the same stable patient, and both should be available and used in a complementary fashion in the modern trauma center.     

Trauma of the liver and hepatic pedicle

Traumatic injuries of the liver and hepatic pedicle secondary to blunt abdominal trauma are unusual and often associated with injuries of other abdominal and/or thoracic organs. These lead the patient to an emergency operation for hemorrhagic shock. The diagnosis of trauma severity and hepatic pedicle involvement is made intraoperatively. Often only one anatomical structure of the hepatic pedicle is involved, whereas involvement of two or all three anatomical structures is rare and associated with a bad prognosis. The management of these injuries still remain one of the most challenging scenario in trauma surgery. The overall experience is not significant. Clear treatment guidelines or management algorithms have not yet been established, in part due to the complexity, severity and variability of these injuries and to the lack of large series with these rare events. Three cases of associated liver and hepatic pedicle injuries treated in our unit are reported.     

Endovascular repair of an actively hemorrhaging gunshot injury to the abdominal aorta

Endovascular stents have had a limited role in the management of trauma and vascular emergencies involving active hemorrhage. We describe a patient with delayed rupture of the infrarenal aorta after intra-abdominal sepsis caused the breakdown of a primary aortic repair. A stent-graft repair was performed, as concomitant injuries did not allow anterior access to the aorta. This report describes the successful endovascular repair of an actively hemorrhaging penetrating abdominal aortic injury. Endovascular approaches to aortic injuries may be valuable in settings where a hostile abdomen precludes traditional open repair.     

Nonoperative management of solid organ injuries. Past, present, and future

All patients with injuries to the solid organs of the abdomen and who are hemodynamically stable should be considered candidates for nonoperative management after their injuries have been staged by abdominal CT scanning, but because the CT stage of the injury does not always predict which patients require laparotomy, these patients must remain under the care of experienced trauma surgeons who can not only recognize the presence of an associated hollow viscus injury in need of repair but also will be readily available to operate if the nonoperative approach fails. Until continued bleeding can be safely ruled out, a period of close monitoring in an ICU-like setting seems warranted. Although delayed bleeding from the liver seems extremely rare, delayed rupture of the spleen and continued hemorrhage into the retroperitoneum from an injured kidney are not unusual, so patients with splenic and renal injuries should be considered candidates for repeat imaging procedures before discharge. Others likely to benefit from a second look at their injuries include patients with subcapsular hematomas, patients with recognized extravasation on the initial scan, and athletes anxious to return to contact sports. Experience from major trauma centers suggests that the incidence of missed intestinal injuries is low in adults and children managed nonoperatively, but surgeons must be diligent in monitoring for increasing abdominal pain, abdominal distention, vomiting, and signs of inflammation, which may be delayed manifestations of intestinal disruption. Patients with vascular injuries (grade V injuries to the spleen, liver, or kidney) may be candidates for radiologic procedures, such as angioembolization or stenting, but some of these patients are best served by immediate laparotomy. Selected patients with penetrating injuries may also be candidates for the nonoperative approach, but further research in this area is needed before this approach can be widely embraced. As we approach the year 2000, the nonoperative approach to hepatic, splenic, and renal injuries will continue to have a major role in the treatment of trauma patients. Currently, the morbidity and mortality rates of nonoperative management are acceptably low, but surgeons still must monitor their results carefully as they apply these methods more liberally among injured patients.