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.
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.
Authors: H Uzunosmanoğlu; Ş K Çorbacıoğlu; Y Çevik; E Akıncı; Ç Hacıfazlıoğlu; A Yavuz; Y Yüzbaşıoğlu Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; William S Richardson; Lily Chang; David B Earle; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584