World's first medical networking and resource portal

Articles
Category : All
Medical Articles
May07
Diagnostic Laparoscopy for Trauma
Rationale for the Procedure
Exploratory laparotomies in trauma patients with suspected intra-abdominal injuries are associated with a high negative laparotomy rate and significant procedure-related morbidity. Diagnostic laparoscopy has been proposed for trauma patients to prevent unnecessary exploratory laparotomies with their associated higher morbidity and cost.
Technique
Many studies have documented the feasibility and safety of the procedure in trauma patients (level I-III) [1-25]. The procedure is usually performed under general anesthesia; however, local anesthesia with IV sedation has also been used successfully. The latter, in conjunction with a dedicated mobile cart, facilitates the procedure in the emergency department. A recent study demonstrated the safety and advantages of awake laparoscopy under local anesthesia in the emergency department over standard DL in the operating room (level III) [21]. Many authors have used low insufflation pressures (8-12 mm Hg); however, pressures up to 15 mm Hg have been described without untoward events. Special attention should be given to the possibility of a tension pneumothorax caused by the pneumoperitoneum due to an unsuspected diaphragmatic rupture. The pneumoperitoneum is created usually through a periumbilical incision using a Veress needle or open technique after insertion of a nasogastric tube and a Foley catheter.
In the case of penetrating wounds, air leaks can be controlled with sutures. A 30-degree laparoscope is advantageous, and additional trocars are used for organ manipulations. The peritoneal cavity can be examined systematically taking advantage of patient positioning manipulations. The colon can be mobilized and the lesser sac inspected. Suction/irrigation may be needed for optimal visualization, and methylene blue can be administered IV or via a nasogastric tube to help identify urologic or stomach injuries, respectively. In penetrating injuries, peritoneal violation can be determined.
Indications
• Suspected but unproven intra-abdominal injury after blunt or penetrating trauma
• More specific indications include:
• Suspected intra-abdominal injury despite negative initial workup after blunt trauma
• Abdominal stab wounds with proven or equivocal penetration of fascia
• Abdominal gunshot wounds with doubtful intraperitoneal trajectory
• Diagnosis of diaphragmatic injury from penetrating trauma to the thoracoabdominal area
• Creation of a transdiaphragmatic pericardial window to rule out cardiac injury
Contraindications (Absolute or Relative)
• Hemodynamic instability (defined by most studies as systolic pressure < 90 mm Hg)
• A clear indication for immediate celiotomy such as frank peritonitis, hemorrhagic shock, or evisceration
• Known or obvious intra-abdominal injury
• Posterior penetrating trauma with high likelihood of bowel injury
• Limited laparoscopic expertise
Risks
• Delay to definitive treatment
• Missed injuries with their associated morbidity
• Procedure- and anesthesia-related complications
Benefits
• Reduction in the rate of negative and nontherapeutic laparotomies (with a subsequent decrease in hospitalization, morbidity, and cost after negative laparoscopy)
• Accurate identification of diaphragmatic injury
• Ability to provide therapeutic intervention
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Procedure
The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the procedure when used to predict the need for laparotomy are high (75-100%) (level I-III) [1-25]; however, they depend on several factors (see Limitations of the Available Literature). When DL has been used as a screening tool (i.e., early conversion to open exploration with the first encounter of a positive finding like the identification of peritoneal penetration in penetrating trauma or active bleeding/peritoneal fluid in blunt trauma patients), the number of missed injuries is <1% (level II, III) [2-8]. Although early studies cautioned about the low sensitivity and high missed injury rates of the procedure when used to identify specific injuries (level II, III) [9-12], studies published recently consistently report a 0% missed injury rate even when DL is used for reasons other than screening (level I-III) [1-7,14,16-25]. This rate holds true for studies that have used laparoscopy to treat the majority of identified injuries (level II, III) [22,24,25].
Studies of DL for trauma report negative procedures in a median 57% (range, 17-89) of patients, sparing them an unnecessary exploratory laparotomy (level I-III) [1-7, 13-25]. On the other hand, the median percentage of negative exploratory laparotomies after a positive DL (false positive rate) is reported to be around 6% (range, 0-44) (level I-III) [1-7,14,16-25]. While most authors have converted to open exploration after a positive DL, some authors have successfully treated the majority of patients (up to 83%) laparoscopically (level II, III) [22,24,25]. The safety and accuracy of the procedure has also been demonstrated in pediatric trauma patients (level III) [22].
Procedure-related Complications and Patient Outcomes
Procedure-related complications occur in up to 11% of patients and are usually minor (level I-III) [1-25]. A 1999 review of 37 studies, which included more than 1,900 patients demonstrated a procedure-related complication rate of 1% [9]. Recent studies report a median of 0 (range, 0-10%) morbidity and 0% mortality (level I-III) [1-7,14,16-25]. Intraoperative complications can occur during creation of the pneumoperitoneum, trocar insertion, or during the diagnostic examination. These complications include tension pneumothorax caused by unrecognized injuries to the diaphragm, perforation of a hollow viscus, laceration of a solid organ, vascular injury (usually trocar injury of an epigastric artery or lacerated omental vessels), and subcutaneous or extraperitoneal dissection by the insufflation gas. Port site infections may occur during the postoperative course.
Negative DL is associated with shorter postoperative hospital stays compared with negative exploratory laparotomy (2-3 days vs. 4-5 days, respectively) (level II, III) [2,4-9,14,16-20,22-25]. Although a few studies have even demonstrated shorter stays after therapeutic laparoscopy compared with open (level III) [22,24,25], the only level I study available demonstrated a statistically significant shorter hospital stay after DL (5.1 vs. 5.7 days) [1]. In a very recent study, awake laparoscopy in the emergency department under local anesthesia resulted in discharge of patients from the hospital faster compared with DL in the operating room (7 vs. 18 hours, respectively; p<0.001) (level III) [21].
Comparative studies also suggest lower morbidity rates after negative DL compared with negative exploratory laparotomy (level II, III) [5,19,21], whereas other studies have shown similar outcomes (level I-III) [1,7].
Cost-effectiveness
A number of reports have demonstrated higher costs (up to two times higher) after negative exploratory laparotomy compared with negative DL (levels II, III) [6,14,17] as a direct consequence of shorter hospital stays. Nevertheless, a level I study did not demonstrate cost differences when an intention-to-treat analysis was used to compare a DL-treated group with that of an exploratory laparotomy-treated group [1]. Recently a level III study reported cost savings of $2,000 per patient when awake laparoscopy under local anesthesia was used in the emergency department compared with DL in the operating room [21].
Limitations of the Available Literature
The available literature has limited quality (only one small, level I study exists) and is very inhomogeneous, making generalizations and conclusions difficult. Study populations have been variable (blunt, penetrating, or mixed), and some studies have focused only on patients with suspected diaphragmatic injuries or blunt bowel injuries. Moreover, the indication for conversion to exploratory laparotomy has also been inconsistent. Most studies use peritoneal penetration or bleeding and free peritoneal fluid as an immediate reason for conversion, whereas others have converted only after specific injuries have been identified, and others have converted only when laparoscopic repair was impossible. The impact of laparoscopic expertise on the diagnostic accuracy of the procedure has not been assessed. Since the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and number of missed injuries can be substantially influenced by most of these factors, it is difficult to provide firm recommendations on the role of DL in trauma patients.
Recommendations
Diagnostic laparoscopy is technically feasible and can be applied safely in appropriately selected trauma patients (grade B). The procedure has been shown to effectively decrease the rate of negative laparotomies and minimize patient morbidity. It should be considered in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients with suspected intra-abdominal injury and equivocal findings on imaging studies or even in patients with negative studies but a high clinical likelihood for intra-abdominal injury (grade C). It may be particularly useful and should be considered in patients with penetrating trauma of the abdomen with documented or equivocal penetration of the anterior fascia (grade C). It should be used in patients with suspected diaphragmatic injury, as imaging occult injury rates are significant, and DL offers the best diagnostic accuracy (grade C). Patients should be followed cautiously postoperatively for the early identification of missed injuries. Therapeutic intervention can be provided safely when laparoscopic expertise is available (grade C). To optimize results, the procedure should be incorporated in institutional diagnostic and treatment algorithms for trauma patients.
Bibliography
1. Leppaniemi A, Haapiainen R Diagnostic laparoscopy in abdominal stab wounds: a prospective, randomized study. J Trauma 2003; 55(4):636-45.
2. Ahmed, N., Whelan, J., Brownlee, J., Chari, V., and Chung, R. The Contribution of Laparoscopy in Evaluation of Penetrating Abdominal Wounds. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2005;201(2):213-6.
3. Mitsuhide, K., Junichi, S., Atsushi, N., Masakazu, D., Shinobu, H., Tomohisa, E., and Hiroshi, Y. Computed Tomographic Scanning and Selective Laparoscopy in the Diagnosis of Blunt Bowel Injury: a Prospective Study. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care 2005;58(4):696-701.
4. Cherry, R. A., Eachempati, S. R., Hydo, L. J., and Barie, P. S. The Role of Laparoscopy in Penetrating Abdominal Stab Wounds. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 2005;15(1):14-7.
5. Miles, E. J., Dunn, E., Howard, D., and Mangram, A. The Role of Laparoscopy in Penetrating Abdominal Trauma. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2004;8(4):304-9.
6. Taner, A. S., Topgul, K., Kucukel, F., Demir, A., and Sari, S. Diagnostic Laparoscopy Decreases the Rate of Unnecessary Laparotomies and Reduces Hospital Costs in Trauma Patients. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 2001;Part A. 11(4):207-11.
7. Simon, R. J., Rabin, J., and Kuhls, D. Impact of Increased Use of Laparoscopy on Negative Laparotomy Rates After Penetrating Trauma. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care 2002;53(2):297-302.
8. Murray, J. A., Demetriades, D., Asensio, J. A., Cornwell, E. E., III, Velmahos, G. C., Belzberg, H., and Berne, T. V. Occult Injuries to the Diaphragm: Prospective Evaluation of Laparoscopy in Penetrating Injuries to the Left Lower Chest. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 1998;187(6):626-30.
9. Villavicencio, R. T. and Aucar, J. A. Analysis of Laparoscopy in Trauma. [Review] [62 Refs]. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 1999;189(1):11-20
10. Rossi P, Mullins D, Thal E. Role of laparoscopy in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Am J Surg 1993;166:707–711.
11. Ortega AE, Tang E, Froes ET, et al. Laparoscopic evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal traumatic injuries. Surg Endosc 1996;10:19–22.
12. Brandt CP, Priebe PP, Jacobs DG. Potential of laparoscopy to reduce nontherapeutic trauma laparotomies. Am Surg 1994;60: 416–420.
13. Mathonnet, M., Peyrou, P., Gainant, A., Bouvier, S., and Cubertafond, P. Role of Laparoscopy in Blunt Perforations of the Small Bowel. Surgical Endoscopy 2003;17(4):641-5.
14. DeMaria, E. J., Dalton, J. M., Gore, D. C., Kellum, J. M., and Sugerman, H. J. Complementary Roles of Laparoscopic Abdominal Exploration and Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage for Evaluating Abdominal Stab Wounds: a Prospective Study. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 2000;Part A. 10(3):131-6.
15. Elliott, D. C., Rodriguez, A., Moncure, M., Myers, R. A., Shillinglaw, W., Davis, F., Goldberg, A., Mitchell, K., and McRitchie, D. The Accuracy of Diagnostic Laparoscopy in Trauma Patients: a Prospective, Controlled Study. International Surgery 1998;83(4):294-8.
16. Zantut, L. F., Ivatury, R. R., Smith, R. S., Kawahara, N. T., Porter, J. M., Fry, W. R., Poggetti, R., Birolini, D., and Organ, C. H., Jr. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Laparoscopy for Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: a Multicenter Experience. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care 1997;42(5):825-9.
17. Marks, J. M., Youngelman, D. F., and Berk, T. Cost Analysis of Diagnostic Laparoscopy Vs Laparotomy in the Evaluation of Penetrating Abdominal Trauma. Surgical Endoscopy 1997;11(3):272-6.
18. Smith, R. S., Fry, W. R., Morabito, D. J., Koehler, R. H., and Organ, C. H., Jr. Therapeutic Laparoscopy in Trauma. American Journal of Surgery 1995;170(6):632-6.
19. Sosa, J. L., Arrillaga, A., Puente, I., Sleeman, D., Ginzburg, E., and Martin, L. Laparoscopy in 121 Consecutive Patients With Abdominal Gunshot Wounds. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care 1995;39(3):501-4.
20. Hallfeldt, K. K., Trupka, A. W., Erhard, J., Waldner, H., and Schweiberer, L. Emergency Laparoscopy for Abdominal Stab Wounds. Surgical Endoscopy 1998;12(7):907-10..
21. Weinberg JA, Magnotti LJ, Edwards NM, Claridge JA, Minard G, Fabian TC, Croce MA. "Awake" laparoscopy for the evaluation of equivocal penetrating abdominal wounds. Injury. 2007;38(1):60-4.
22. Feliz A, Shultz B, McKenna C, Gaines BA. Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy in pediatric abdominal trauma. J Pediatr Surg. 2006;41(1):72-7.
23. McQuay N, Britt LD. Laparoscopy in the evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma. Am Surg. 2003;69(9):788-91.
24. Fabiani P, Iannelli A, Mazza D, Bartels AM, Venissac N, Baquι P, Gugenheim J. Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for stab wounds of the anterior abdomen. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003 Oct;13(5):309-12.
25. Chol YB, Lim KS.Therapeutic laparoscopy for abdominal trauma. Surg Endosc 2003;17(3):421-7


Category (Gastrointestinal Problems)  |   Views (13250)  |  User Rating
Rate It


Browse Archive