Saurav Chakravartty1, Diwakar R Sarma2, Muhammad Noor2, Spyros Panagiotopoulos2, Ameet G Patel3. 1. King's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. Electronic address: saurav_tty@yahoo.com. 2. King's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. 3. King's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. Electronic address: ameetpatel1@nhs.net.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy is increasingly utilised as a diagnostic tool in management of abdominal trauma; however its role in therapeutic intervention remains unexplored. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopy with laparotomy in the treatment of abdominal trauma in haemodynamically stable patients. METHODS: A review of patients undergoing surgery for abdominal trauma between January 2004-2014 identified 25 patients who underwent laparoscopy for therapeutic intervention (TL). This group was matched with 25 similar patients undergoing laparotomy (LT). Matching of the two cohorts was based on patient characteristics, severity of injuries, haemodynamic compromise and radiological findings. Peri-operative outcomes were compared. DISCUSSION: Patient characteristics were similar in TL and LT patients for age (median 33 vs. 26 years), gender distribution and clinical presentation. Injury severity score was also similar with a median of 16 in both groups (major trauma = ISS>15, normal range 0-75). Types of injuries included; hollow viscus [bowel repair = 10 (TL) vs. 16 (LT)] and solid organs [5(TL) vs. 2 (LT)]. Median operating time was similar in both groups; 105(TL) compared to 98 (LT) minutes. Post-operative complications (1 vs. 10, p = 0.02), analgesia requirements, specifically opiate use (34 vs. 136 morphine equivalents, p = 0.002) and hospital stay (4 vs. 9 days, p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal trauma in haemodynamically stable patients can be managed effectively and safely with laparoscopy by experienced surgeons. Major benefits may include lower morbidity, reduced pain, and shorter length of hospital stay. Crown
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy is increasingly utilised as a diagnostic tool in management of abdominal trauma; however its role in therapeutic intervention remains unexplored. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopy with laparotomy in the treatment of abdominal trauma in haemodynamically stable patients. METHODS: A review of patients undergoing surgery for abdominal trauma between January 2004-2014 identified 25 patients who underwent laparoscopy for therapeutic intervention (TL). This group was matched with 25 similar patients undergoing laparotomy (LT). Matching of the two cohorts was based on patient characteristics, severity of injuries, haemodynamic compromise and radiological findings. Peri-operative outcomes were compared. DISCUSSION: Patient characteristics were similar in TL and LT patients for age (median 33 vs. 26 years), gender distribution and clinical presentation. Injury severity score was also similar with a median of 16 in both groups (major trauma = ISS>15, normal range 0-75). Types of injuries included; hollow viscus [bowel repair = 10 (TL) vs. 16 (LT)] and solid organs [5(TL) vs. 2 (LT)]. Median operating time was similar in both groups; 105(TL) compared to 98 (LT) minutes. Post-operative complications (1 vs. 10, p = 0.02), analgesia requirements, specifically opiate use (34 vs. 136 morphine equivalents, p = 0.002) and hospital stay (4 vs. 9 days, p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. CONCLUSIONS:Abdominal trauma in haemodynamically stable patients can be managed effectively and safely with laparoscopy by experienced surgeons. Major benefits may include lower morbidity, reduced pain, and shorter length of hospital stay. Crown